Hi!
For the record we've started some discussion upstream about the
relationship between MAT and MAT2 / the future of MAT v1.
Personally I don't have anything at stake wrt. what's decided
upstream, although I've already shared my thoughts with
Julien privately.
What matters to me is the users' perspective. I think we should
provide a clear, unambiguous transition path and avoid leaking
technical details to users. So once MAT2 reaches feature parity with
MAT (I think the only real blocker is the lack of a Nautilus
extension; MAT v1's seems to be broken on sid currently but it has
a GUI which mitigates that problem) I think we should:
- Have mat2 conflicts+replaces mat, remove mat from testing+sid,
and ship a transitional package called mat that pulls mat2 in.
Or simply call mat2 source and binary packages "mat".
- Ensure the app launcher (.desktop) for MAT2 makes it clear that it
provides MAT, without leaking version numbers or such:
GenericName=Metadata Anonymisation Toolkit
Name=MAT
Thoughts?
Cheers!
