On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 23:41:05 +0100, Dr. Tobias Quathamer wrote: > Am 15.12.2017 um 16:51 schrieb Emilio Pozuelo Monfort: > > On 15/12/17 15:23, gregor herrmann wrote: > >> On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 11:52:19 +0100, Dr. Tobias Quathamer wrote: > >> Are there any plans to help users with the transition from openshot > >> to openshot-qt, like the former depending on the latter before its > >> removal or a transitional dummy package or something? > >> Currently users will detect openshot-qt just by chance ... > > Why was this renamed to openshot-qt? Upstream is still called 'openshot', > > so I'm > > not sure it makes sense to embed the toolkit in the package name... > my plan was to convert openshot into an empty transitional package which > depends on openshot-qt.
That's an option. > The renaming has been done by the previous maintainer, who already did > much work but then orphaned the packaging. I have to admit that I did > not think too much about the new package name and I'm not sticking to > it. However, it made sense to me, because the new program is a complete > rewrite of the old codebase, so starting the Debian package from scratch > seemed sensible. I see your point but from a user's point of view this is probably not so relevant. > Do you think that it might be better to reuse the "old" package openshot > instead? Most (if not all) of the currently open bugs against openshot > would no longer apply and could be closed, but that's of course manageable. > I'm open for suggestions ... :-) I think resuing the openshot package name would indeed be the easiest / least confusing way forward. Cheers, gregor -- .''`. https://info.comodo.priv.at -- Debian Developer https://www.debian.org : :' : OpenPGP fingerprint D1E1 316E 93A7 60A8 104D 85FA BB3A 6801 8649 AA06 `. `' Member VIBE!AT & SPI Inc. -- Supporter Free Software Foundation Europe `- NP: Davy Graham: Bulgarian Dance
signature.asc
Description: Digital Signature
