Re: RFS: ruby-ncursesw 1.3.1-1

[Per Andersson <avtobiff@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 4:18 PM, Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org> wrote:
> Per Andersson escreveu isso aí:
>> On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Per Andersson <avtobiff@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > What about the transition from ruby-ncurses to ruby-ncursesw? Should
>> > ruby-ncursesw just provide ruby-ncurses or should there be a also be
>> > conflicts in there? From what I can tell ruby-ncursesw should provide
>> > ruby-ncurses and conflict ruby-ncurses (if that is at all possible).
>>
>> As I understood from Policy 7.6.2 ruby-ncursesw should
>>
>> Provides: ruby-ncurses
>> Conflicts: ruby-ncurses
>> Replaces: ruby-ncurses
>>
>> I base this upon the fact that
>> a) ruby-ncursesw should replace ruby-ncurses, and,
>> b) ruby-ncursesw and ruby-ncurses both install
>>    /usr/lib/ruby/vendor_ruby/ncurses.rb.
>
> You also want to move the transitional packages currently contained in
> the ruby-ncurses source package to the new ruby-ncursesw source package,
> and move the Replaces: and Provides: lines (agains the old lib*ruby*
> packages) from ruby-ncurses to ruby-ncursesw.

Ok, as I understood the transitional packages can be dropped for wheezy. Do
they need to be kept for wheezy also?


> Actualy, what we could do instead is keep the existing ruby-ncurses
> source package, and switch upstream to ncursesw. This way we avoid all
> this moving around. That's what other language teams already do, i.e.
> their 'ncurses' library is actualy 'ncursesw'.

Sounds very reasonable.


> What do you think?

Sounds good. And have ruby-ncurses provide ruby-ncursesw?

Do I have the teams green light for fixing the ruby-ncurses package?
(Switching upstream, add 1.9 compat patch, more?)


>> When we have reached a decision I can contact the tpp mantainer
>> about the transition.
>
> A bug report about the issue with 1.9 would be nice.

I'll submit one.


--
Per

> --
> Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>