On 28/05/14 15:44, gregor herrmann wrote: > 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. I had indeed wondered the same thing! What would be the process for renaming the git repo.. Is it a rename of do we create a new repo with dpt alioth-repo? > - 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. That's fine... I was just using what I'd seen done in other packages. >> But you've all confirmed what I thought would be the correct approach :) > > Heh :) > Also once uploaded I guess we need to file bugs/update the following packages which rdepend on libtime-modules-perl request-tracker4 mon lire libschedule-cron-perl dirvish backuppc Regards, -- Daniel Lintott GPG Key: 4096R/5D73EC6E
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature