On Fri, 2 Jan 2004, Miller, Raul D wrote:
> In my mind, the right way to deal with this problem is:
> [3] When the author releases 1.0, release that as a new package under
> a different name (perhaps "crm") which conflicts with the alpha crm114
> package. Also, at that time, update the alpha crm114 package's
> description (and NEWS) files with a note that the package is alpha,
> that it's been superceeded by the version 1.0 instance of crm, and that
> the .css file formats are incompatible.
Please don't do this. The package is called crm114, calling it crm will
confuse many, and cause many who search for crm114 to not find it.
If you really need to keep both versions of the package around, upload a
package called crm114-alpha that Replaces crm114 (<= 2002-11-26-3) and
Conflicts with crm114.
This effectively renames the package, and allows those who need it to keep
the old .css format. Put a message in the control file mentioning that
this version is very old, and to use it only if you must.
Then during debconf of the new crm114 if you notice you are upgrading from
2002-11-26-3 or less pop up a message (level critical) telling them that
the format for .css has changed and to retrain by running:
learnspam.crm < spamtext.txt and
learnnonspam.crm < nonspamtext.txt
Personally I think you should just forget about maintaining compatibility
with the old format for .css - if you have spamtext.txt and nonspamtext.txt
then you don't need it, and if you don't then just start over - the old
version of crm114 is much less accurate anyway.
-Ariel
