On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 03:32:10 -0800 Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 12:12:48PM +0100, Ricardo Mones wrote: > > Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 10:58:02AM +0100, Ricardo Mones wrote: > > > > So the question is to do that renaming now or to do it after Etch. > > > > > I'd be happy to do the switch now and forget s-c-gtk2 packages, but > > > > given current Etch status I understand it may not be possible. Please > > > > let me know and/or the changes required to make this possible. > > > > Given the large number of binary packages involved and the potential > > > interplay between them, I would prefer postponing this until lenny. > > > Which interplay are you referring to? The plugins are shared libraries > > loaded by the main program (claws-mail) to extend it's functionality, > > nothing more. There's a unique interdependency between plugins (pgpinline > > and pgmmime require pgpcore) but it's already present and solved in > > current packages. > > Are all of the plugin packages being renamed along with the application? Yep, that's the plan, all plugins provided withing program sources and also the extra plugins are renamed. > Will each of these packages need to conflict/replace the old package name > to ensure a smooth transition? Technically speaking that's not needed as they're installed in a different location, only the main package needs to conflict because it provides also a symlink with the old binary name (sylpheed-claws-gtk2). That can be easily removed. Appart from that new and old packages could perfectly coexist. If ensuring a smooth transition includes that apt-get upgrade/dist-upgrade does the package switching then as I understand it only a Provides: with the old package name would be required in each new package. That's currently not implemented in current packages. I may be wrong here, though. > Are the dependencies on sylpheed-claws-gtk2 auto-generated from the > build-dependency somehow, or will they need to each be updated manually for > the transition? Generated from the libsylpheed-claws-gtk2-dev/libclaws-mail-dev version in the build-depends. Only this one needs to be manually updated, plugins' dependency is obtained from this one. > Not all of the plugin packages are from the sylpheed-claws-gtk2 source > package; will the multiple source packages need to be updated in testing > together, and will the package relationships reflect this to prevent any > accidents? Indeed, the new claws-mail-extra-plugins package is already depending on libclaws-mail-dev. This one should be introduced in testing after claws-mail (which provides libclaws-mail-dev). > Will the build-dependencies of s-c-gtk2-extra-plugins change on package > rename, will the change prevent or allow the package to be built with the > current libsylpheed-claws-gtk2-dev, and what are the consequences of this > if any? Yes, the change, as said, and building with libsylpheed-claws-gtk2-dev is not allowed. I cannot see any consequences, they need libclaws-mail-dev to be built correctly for claws-mail. > These are the kinds of issues that constitute "interplay", and make this a > potentially risky update. The release team doesn't have time right now to > help make sure the transition is a smooth one, and we can't really afford a > rough one, sorry. Ok, fine enough for me, I won't waste anymore your time. Anyway I'd like this dialog to continue after releasing to ensure this a succesful transition, with you or any other RM if you don't have time. thanks in advance, P.S.: Please Cc me, I'm not subscribed to debian-release. -- Ricardo Mones http://people.debian.org/~mones «The ripest fruit falls first. -- William Shakespeare, "Richard II"»
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature