Re: [timshel@pobox.com: X4 phase 2 packages issue ...]
On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 10:16:49PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> Josip had expressed his intention to rename xpm4g to libxpm and more
> specifically, he had expressed his intention to do it smoothly:
>
> | xpm (3.4k-2) unstable; urgency=low
> |
> | * Following Joel Klecker's example (from zlib1g), for smoother
> | transition to new names (which I will use after potato), I made
> | xpm4g{,-dev} provide libxpm4{,-dev}, put that name in the shlibs
> | file, and removed the version.
> |
> | -- Josip Rodin <jrodin@jagor.srce.hr> Tue, 14 Sep 1999 20:09:37 +0200
[...]
> And above all that, our packaging system does not support package
> renaming in way that allows for trouble-free upgrades. The only way
> to ensure that is having some package depend on the new name and the
> the package with the new name to provide the old name.
My plan was to file wishlist bug reports to have most of those packages get
recompiled with the new shlibs, after potato was released (because that
would only be asking that the maintainer has a machine running _stable_ to
recompile the package). By the time woody freezes I expected most of them
would be dealt with, and that I'd have to recompiled others myself in a
couple of NMUs.
The fact X4 has swallowed xpm* doesn't have to change that plan drastically,
actually. We could file those wishlists right now, I guess your feedbts
script could help, even.
--
Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification
Reply to: