On Wed, 28 May 2014 09:55:13 +0100, Daniel Lintott wrote:
> >> My preference ist to
> >> - take the existing packaging but
> >> - rename the source package (and produce a new binary and make
> >> the old one a transitional dummy package), else someone (at least
> >> me :)) will be confused in the future
> > Yes, exactly.
> Apologies if there was some confusion... that was probably down to my
> wording!
No worries, we others also added our share to the confusion :)
I see that you've changed the package in git already. Two questions
after a very quick view at it:
- Should we rename also the git repo? I tend to "yes", since it the
moment the (repo and therefore the) local directory is called after
the old package name, which means I'll never find it again :)
and `dpt co libtime-parsedate-perl' also doesn't work.
- For the dummy package you added
Depends: libtime-parsedate-perl (= ${binary:Version})
I think a plain "Depends: libtime-parsedate-perl" would be enough,
after all we only want to pull in the new package.
But I might miss something here; in this case we also should
revisit other dummy packages.
> But you've all confirmed what I thought would be the correct approach :)
Heh :)
Cheers,
gregor
--
.''`. Homepage: http://info.comodo.priv.at/ - OpenPGP key 0xBB3A68018649AA06
: :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, and developer - http://www.debian.org/
`. `' Member of VIBE!AT & SPI, fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe
`- NP: Ben Weaver: Vapor
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital Signature