On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 12:14:14AM +0100, Georg Faerber wrote: > Hi all, > > Upstream decided [1] to rename factory-girl to factory-bot, because "The > name "Factory Girl" was confusing to some developers who encountered > this library, and offensive or problematic to others." [2] > > We're using this in schleuder, therefore I would like to update the name > accordingly. > > However, as I'm still quite new to Debian packaging, at least up until > now I've never done a task like this, I'm unsure what this does involve: > > - A ITP for a new package?
no
> - "Just" renaming? What about reverse dependencies?
no
> - Does this need in fact a transition?
yes, please be nice and considerate. also it seems to just affect 3
packages, so:
- package factory-bot, provide a transitional factory-girl package
(=rename the source package and provide a new binary package).
then file bugs against the depending packages and tell them what
happened and ask them to depend on factory-bot. if it were a big
transition, starting with wishlist bugs might be appropriate, but
here I think you can go straight to "important". (and in the case
of bigger/larger/more painful transitions you'd eventually escalate
to RC...). then get those bugs fixed and once noone depends on
factory-girl anymore, remove that transitional package from
factory-bot for good.
this is described in more detail in debian-policy and/or developers
reference.
> - Besides all of the above: I'm planning to backport this to stretch, as
> well.
get it fixed in buster first...
--
cheers,
Holger
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
