On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 02:35:21AM +0100, Steffen Möller wrote: > > We are packaging software, not workflows (at the very moment, mostly). > Anybody > requesting tophat shall get exactly that, however unfortunate that decision > may be.
Fair enough. > I am happy with a post-inst warning, or a debian/NEWS entry, but what the > user gets has to be what the user asks for. Good idea. > > > > 1. tophat Depends hisat2 (solves the issue that the replacement > > will be installed > You may suggest hisat2, or even recommend it, but you should not depend on > it. And there is no need to enforce a replacement in the first place. I admit I see no real harm done to use stronger relations as long as the user really gets what was requested. > > 2. provide instead of /usr/bin/tophat a shell script issuing > > a warning first before the actual tophat call What do you think about this in addition to a debian/NEWS entry? > > What about this? > > This would undermine the trust that our users have in our packages. > > Please not. It is better remove the package from the archive than to disturb > the integrity of the package. I do not think that an extra dependency - for whatever motivation it was added, will disturb the integrity of the package. > I propose to discuss any general policy towards such desirable package > substitutions at our upcoming Sprint in Barcelona. +1 Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de