On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 18:22, Uwe Storbeck <uwe@ibr.ch> wrote:
On Mar 30, David Kalnischkies wrote:
As far as i know its just voluntary, but after all, IANAD{D,M},
so take everything i say with a bit of salt.
I agree with you that it's probably not the best idea to fix this
problem by changing the behaviour of package managers. But I also
think this bug can not be solved by a voluntary common practice
which may be not so common. ;)
The audience behind bugreports against APT is relatively small, given
that the (active part of the) team is small, so if you want to discuss
that more in-depth you want to raise it on d-mentors or d-devel mailinglist.
But after rereading developers-reference [0], its sort of documented in
§6.7.7 [1], but the obvious special case of a renamed package in §5.9.3
doesn't refer to it, and it says something about the description only.
But dev-ref isn't the most authoritative "policy" in existence anyway…
Looking at its bugs, it has #323066, #486368 and #486754 talking more
or less about the same as we had here.
As merging doesn't add much value to them, i would either reassign it
to the specific package following at least not the tiny bit of policy which
is already there or close it (and open new ones for the specific packages).
I will leave it up to you to decide. Its at least nothing we (as in APT team)
could fix so keeping it around here just adds another non-active bug…