On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 12:14:14AM +0100, Georg Faerber wrote: > Hi all, > > Upstream decided [1] to rename factory-girl to factory-bot, because "The > name "Factory Girl" was confusing to some developers who encountered > this library, and offensive or problematic to others." [2] > > We're using this in schleuder, therefore I would like to update the name > accordingly. > > However, as I'm still quite new to Debian packaging, at least up until > now I've never done a task like this, I'm unsure what this does involve: > > - A ITP for a new package? no > - "Just" renaming? What about reverse dependencies? no > - Does this need in fact a transition? yes, please be nice and considerate. also it seems to just affect 3 packages, so: - package factory-bot, provide a transitional factory-girl package (=rename the source package and provide a new binary package). then file bugs against the depending packages and tell them what happened and ask them to depend on factory-bot. if it were a big transition, starting with wishlist bugs might be appropriate, but here I think you can go straight to "important". (and in the case of bigger/larger/more painful transitions you'd eventually escalate to RC...). then get those bugs fixed and once noone depends on factory-girl anymore, remove that transitional package from factory-bot for good. this is described in more detail in debian-policy and/or developers reference. > - Besides all of the above: I'm planning to backport this to stretch, as > well. get it fixed in buster first... -- cheers, Holger
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature