[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: RFS for icoextract (exe-thumbnailer successor)



Hi Jens, hi James,

On Mon, 23 Dec 2019 19:23:48 +0100, Jens Reyer <jre.winesim@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 22.12.19 22:04, James Lu wrote:
> > I've since prepared Debian packaging for the project, tentatively placed
> > at https://salsa.debian.org/jlu-guest/icoextract. (I couldn't push to
> > wine-team/icoextract since I don't have permissions to set a default
> > branch?)  
> 
> I recently had the same problem, fortunately I now have the relevant
> rights.  So I pushed your repo to wine-team.

Thanks!

> > With all this in mind, I'm inclined to deprecate the existing
> > exe-thumbnailer unless someone else wants to work on it. However, since
> > icoextract is new & has a lower version (0.1.0) than exe-thumbnailer,
> > I'm not exactly sure how to set up a transitional package. Any advice on
> > this would be appreciated!  
> 
> It's been a few years since I had a deep look into this.  Generally the
> version of a binary package doesn't need to be the same as its source
> package version (otherwise, since you're upstream, I'd just bump the
> version of icoextract).
> 
> 
> Nowadays versioned provides should work (but you need to test it).  Just
> add something like this to src:icoextract's d/control:
> 
> Package: icoextract
> Provides: exe-thumbnailer (= 0.10.1-2)

I don’t think this will ensure the transition: there’s nothing that depends
on icoextract, so previous users of exe-thumbnailer will keep that package.

[...]
> If this doesn't work, you'd have to add a separate (empty) transitional
> package:
> 
> Package: exe-thumbnailer
> 
> I think the binary package version can be set in d/rules.

I think this is the best solution. The package version can be set using
dpkg-gencontrol, or its wrapper dh_gencontrol, with the -v option (to set the
version) and the -p option (to specify which package is affected).

Regards,

Stephen

Attachment: pgp397RpoPBQH.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: