Re: name transition of an application implemented in Ruby
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 19:55:45 -0300
Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 08:25:30PM +0200, Norwid Behrnd wrote:
> > Dear Antonio,
> >
> > Initially, package `ruby-gem` was assembled by `gem2deb` which is why I assume
> > it were acceptable to retain a name reflecting the language of implementation
> > in the name of the repository. Meanwhile, the RFS on mentors provides a .deb
> > which yields a package by name of `mdl` only. The syntax engaged relies on the
> > example of Debian's Policy Manual (section 7.6.2) to remove (if existing)
> > earlier versions of the package on the fly with the elder name by a pattern of
> >
> > ```
> > Provides: new_name
> > Conflicts: old_name
> > Replaces: old_name
> > ```
> >
> > in file /debian/control.
> >
> > As far as currently understood, this lifts the need need to rename many
> > files/the repository, or to submit the package for review as an entirely new
> > one your suggestion would require.
> >
> > Do you think the package qualifies now as fit for upload?
>
> Any new package, source or binary, requires a pass through NEW. i.e. if
> you keep the source package name (ruby-mdl), but add a new binary
> package (mdl), it has to go through NEW anyway.
>
> IMO it's better to save everyone's time and do that a single time; this
> is why I'm suggesting to just uploading a single new source package that
> provides both the new binary and the transitional package to supersede
> the old binary package.
Now that I see the point I agree with you. The syntax checker was split a
into transition / dummy package of old name `ruby-mdl`
https://mentors.debian.net/package/ruby-mdl/
https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/r/ruby-mdl/ruby-mdl_0.12.0-4.dsc
to relay to a new and separate `mdl`
https://mentors.debian.net/package/mdl/
https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/mdl/mdl_0.13.0-1.dsc
-- only the later to contain the additional/new functionality.
Reply to: