Quoting Milan Zamazal (p...@debian.org): > CP> At the very minimum, a critical priority debconf note displayed > CP> when upgrading from a pre-20090423 version would be a good way > CP> to try your best preventing the problem to appear. Debconf notes > CP> are discouraged but I think that, here, we have a case where it > CP> would be better having it than nothing. > > Right now, I like this suggestion better than the binary package name > changes. Some might not like it, but I may just try to add it and we'll > see what happens.
In such case, I'd suggest having a good review of the debconf template on debian-l10n-english (that's one of my hats in Debian) as well as getting a good round of translations for this update (that's another of my hats). In short, I'd volunteer to coordinate this. That's certainly a much simpler method...but actually not a universal one (it won't work if people use the noninteractive debconf frontend). Still, probably better than NEWS.Debian alone. > CP> Maybe more people will come up with better suggestions. > > If no applicable precedent in other Debian packages is presented here, > I'll probably discuss the problem on debian-mentors. Other packages have been using debconf notes in such cases. It not completely widely accepted (I'm personnally a big fighter against "useless notes") but it is accepted that, in few cases, it is an acceptable solution. --
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
