Bug#790412: RFS: circus/0.12.0-1
On 07/01/2015 07:24 PM, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 11:02:59AM +0200, David Douard wrote: Version : 0.12.0-1 I think the common practice is to bump the version after a ftp-team reject. Yes, but i've discussed this Julien (jcristau) and we thought it was simpler to keep the same version, since I've modified the Files-Excluded field of the debian/copyright (thus the orig tarball). * remove buildout related files from the source package As your orig tarball differs from the upstream repo (and the repo found in Vcs-*) and so from the tarball exported from the release tag by github, you'll need to note that in the upstream version number and provide a way to recreate such tarball, preferably as a get_orig_source d/rules target. I'm not sure I understand this. The orig tarball is built by uscan (from the upstream tarball from github, then modified by mk-origtargz according to the debian/copyright file). Isn't it the correct way to do this? -- David DOUARD LOGILAB Directeur du département Outils Systèmes +33 1 45 32 03 12david.dou...@logilab.fr +33 1 83 64 25 26http://www.logilab.fr/id/david.douard Formations - http://www.logilab.fr/formations Développements - http://www.logilab.fr/services Gestion de connaissances - http://www.cubicweb.org/ attachment: david_douard.vcf signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#790412: RFS: circus/0.12.0-1
On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 09:36:59AM +0200, David Douard wrote: Version : 0.12.0-1 I think the common practice is to bump the version after a ftp-team reject. Yes, but i've discussed this Julien (jcristau) and we thought it was simpler to keep the same version, since I've modified the Files-Excluded field of the debian/copyright (thus the orig tarball). I'm not sure what's the reasoning behind this. If the version was changed to 0.12.0+dfsg-1 then it would be OK. Maybe there is some misunderstanding here? * remove buildout related files from the source package As your orig tarball differs from the upstream repo (and the repo found in Vcs-*) and so from the tarball exported from the release tag by github, you'll need to note that in the upstream version number and provide a way to recreate such tarball, preferably as a get_orig_source d/rules target. I'm not sure I understand this. The orig tarball is built by uscan (from the upstream tarball from github, then modified by mk-origtargz according to the debian/copyright file). Isn't it the correct way to do this? Ah yes, so you already provide a way to recreate the tarball. Still, the upstream version should be changed. -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#790412: RFS: circus/0.12.0-1
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 15:11:34 +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 09:36:59AM +0200, David Douard wrote: Version : 0.12.0-1 I think the common practice is to bump the version after a ftp-team reject. Yes, but i've discussed this Julien (jcristau) and we thought it was simpler to keep the same version, since I've modified the Files-Excluded field of the debian/copyright (thus the orig tarball). I'm not sure what's the reasoning behind this. If the version was changed to 0.12.0+dfsg-1 then it would be OK. Maybe there is some misunderstanding here? The reasoning is it saves having to add versionmangle options in d/watch, and I didn't think the version number change was necessary as the previous version was never shipped. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#790797: Please push changes to git
On 02/07/15 13:24, Andreas Tille wrote: Hi, I can not find the changes for the release in question in Git. Kind regards Andreas. Done. Pushed both branch and release tag. Ghis -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/55953874.70...@gmail.com
Re: How or if daemon users should be removed
❦ 1 juillet 2015 12:52 +0200, Jakub Wilk jw...@debian.org : So, should I: * Not remove the user on purge (as I have seen done in other packages) There seem to be consensus that system users should not be removed. Please see bug #621833 for details. The thread is mostly dead and it seems that at some point, `deluser --system` will just do the right thing. -- April 1 This is the day upon which we are reminded of what we are on the other three hundred and sixty-four. -- Mark Twain, Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#790797: Please push changes to git
Hi, I can not find the changes for the release in question in Git. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150702122424.ga1...@an3as.eu
Bug#790895: marked as done (RFS: h5py/2.5.0-1)
Your message dated Thu, 2 Jul 2015 20:27:40 + with message-id a2a20ec3b8560d408356cac2fc148e53b2172...@sun-dag3.synchrotron-soleil.fr and subject line RE:Bug#790895: RFS: h5py/2.5.0-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #790895, regarding RFS: h5py/2.5.0-1 to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 790895: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=790895 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems ---BeginMessage--- Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package h5py * Package name: h5py Version : 2.5.0-1 Upstream Author : Andrew Colette * URL : http://www.h5py.org/ * License : BSD Section : python It builds those binary packages: python-h5py - General-purpose Python interface to hdf5 (Python 2) python-h5py-doc - General-purpose Python interface to hdf5 (documentation) python3-h5py - General-purpose Python interface to hdf5 (Python 3) To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/h5py Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/h/h5py/h5py_2.5.0-1.dsc Changes since the last upload: * Remove dependency on pkg-config. * Release to unstable. Regards, Ghislain Vaillant ---End Message--- ---BeginMessage--- uploaded Fred---End Message---
C++ help needed (Was: Bug#777922: jellyfish: ftbfs with GCC-5)
Hi, again I have no idea how to fix this issue and need to ask some c++ experts. Thanks for any help Andreas. On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:32:46AM +, Matthias Klose wrote: Package: src:jellyfish Version: 2.1.4-1 Severity: normal Tags: sid stretch User: debian-...@lists.debian.org Usertags: ftbfs-gcc-5 Please keep this issue open in the bug tracker for the package it was filed for. If a fix in another package is required, please file a bug for the other package (or clone), and add a block in this package. Please keep the issue open until the package can be built in a follow-up test rebuild. The package fails to build in a test rebuild on at least amd64 with gcc-5/g++-5, but succeeds to build with gcc-4.9/g++-4.9. The severity of this report may be raised before the stretch release. The full build log can be found at: http://people.debian.org/~doko/logs/gcc5-20150205/jellyfish_2.1.4-1_unstable_gcc5.log The last lines of the build log are at the end of this report. To build with GCC 5, either set CC=gcc-5 CXX=g++-5 explicitly, or install the gcc, g++, gfortran, ... packages from experimental. apt-get -t experimental install g++ Common build failures are C11 as the default C mode, new warnings resulting in build failures with -Werror turned on, or new/dropped symbols in Debian symbols files. For other C/C++ related build failures see the porting guide at http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-5/porting_to.html [...] jellyfish/merge_files.cc:50:14: warning: 'templateclass class std::auto_ptr' is deprecated [-Wdeprecated-declarations] typedef std::auto_ptrRectangularBinaryMatrix matrix_ptr; ^ In file included from /usr/include/c++/5/bits/locale_conv.h:41:0, from /usr/include/c++/5/locale:43, from /usr/include/c++/5/iomanip:43, from ./include/jellyfish/err.hpp:21, from ./jellyfish/merge_files.hpp:21, from jellyfish/merge_files.cc:17: /usr/include/c++/5/bits/unique_ptr.h:49:28: note: declared here templatetypename class auto_ptr; ^ CXXLDbin/jellyfish make[3]: Leaving directory '/??PKGBUILDDIR??' make[2]: Leaving directory '/??PKGBUILDDIR??' make[1]: Leaving directory '/??PKGBUILDDIR??' dh_auto_test -a make[1]: Entering directory '/??PKGBUILDDIR??' make check-am make[2]: Entering directory '/??PKGBUILDDIR??' make libgtest.la libgtest_main.la bin/generate_sequence bin/test_all make[3]: Entering directory '/??PKGBUILDDIR??' CXX unit_tests/gtest/src/libgtest_la-gtest-all.lo CXXLDlibgtest.la CXX unit_tests/gtest/src/libgtest_main_la-gtest_main.lo CXXLDlibgtest_main.la CXX jellyfish/generate_sequence.o CXX jellyfish/mersenne.o CXX jellyfish/backtrace.o CXX jellyfish/dbg.o CXXLDbin/generate_sequence CXX unit_tests/bin_test_all-test_main.o In file included from ./unit_tests/gtest/gtest.h:308:0, from unit_tests/test_main.cc:20: /usr/include/c++/5/sstream:335:7: error: 'struct std::basic_stringbuf_CharT, _Traits, _Alloc::__xfer_bufptrs' redeclared with different access struct __xfer_bufptrs ^ make[3]: *** [unit_tests/bin_test_all-test_main.o] Error 1 Makefile:1285: recipe for target 'unit_tests/bin_test_all-test_main.o' failed make[3]: Leaving directory '/??PKGBUILDDIR??' make[2]: *** [check-am] Error 2 Makefile:2163: recipe for target 'check-am' failed make[2]: Leaving directory '/??PKGBUILDDIR??' make[1]: *** [check] Error 2 Makefile:2166: recipe for target 'check' failed make[1]: Leaving directory '/??PKGBUILDDIR??' dh_auto_test: make -j1 check returned exit code 2 make: *** [build-arch] Error 2 debian/rules:8: recipe for target 'build-arch' failed dpkg-buildpackage: error: debian/rules build-arch gave error exit status 2 ___ Debian-med-packaging mailing list debian-med-packag...@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-med-packaging -- http://fam-tille.de - End forwarded message - -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150703041030.ga3...@an3as.eu
Bug#790785: marked as done (RFS: linop/0.8.2-3)
Your message dated Thu, 02 Jul 2015 16:27:21 + with message-id e1zahkb-y8...@quantz.debian.org and subject line closing RFS: linop/0.8.2-3 has caused the Debian Bug report #790785, regarding RFS: linop/0.8.2-3 to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 790785: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=790785 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems ---BeginMessage--- Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package linop * Package name: linop Version : 0.8.2-3 Upstream Author : Ghislain Vaillant ghisv...@gmail.com * URL : https://pypi.python.org/pypi/linop * License : BSD Section : python It builds those binary packages: python-linop - Linear mathematical operators in Python (Python 2) python-linop-doc - Linear mathematical operators in Python (documentation) python3-linop - Linear mathematical operators in Python (Python 3) To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/linop Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/linop/linop_0.8.2-3.dsc Changes since the last upload: [Ghislain Antony Vaillant] * Bump standards version, no changes required. * d/control: - fix uploaders field, - remove build-dep on python-docutils. * d/copyright: - use compatible licensing for debian/*, - remove unneeded entry for tests/*. * d/rules: - make non-verbose default, - add symlink to system mathjax in -doc package. * d/patches: - add use-system-mathjax.patch. [Juan Picca] * d/rules: make package build reproducible. (Closes: #788402) Regards, Ghislain Vaillant ---End Message--- ---BeginMessage--- Package linop version 0.8.2-3 is in unstable now. https://packages.qa.debian.org/linop---End Message---
Bug#790895: RFS: h5py/2.5.0-1
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package h5py * Package name: h5py Version : 2.5.0-1 Upstream Author : Andrew Colette * URL : http://www.h5py.org/ * License : BSD Section : python It builds those binary packages: python-h5py - General-purpose Python interface to hdf5 (Python 2) python-h5py-doc - General-purpose Python interface to hdf5 (documentation) python3-h5py - General-purpose Python interface to hdf5 (Python 3) To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/h5py Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/h/h5py/h5py_2.5.0-1.dsc Changes since the last upload: * Remove dependency on pkg-config. * Release to unstable. Regards, Ghislain Vaillant -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/55958011.9050...@gmail.com
Bug#790797: marked as done (RFS: pyzolib/0.3.3-2)
Your message dated Thu, 02 Jul 2015 16:27:20 + with message-id e1zahka-xz...@quantz.debian.org and subject line closing RFS: pyzolib/0.3.3-2 has caused the Debian Bug report #790797, regarding RFS: pyzolib/0.3.3-2 to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 790797: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=790797 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems ---BeginMessage--- Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package pyzolib * Package name: pyzolib Version : 0.3.3-2 Upstream Author : Almar Klein almar.kl...@gmail.com * URL : https://bitbucket.org/pyzo/pyzolib * License : BSD Section : Science It builds those binary packages: python-pyzolib - Utilities for the Pyzo environment (Python 2) python3-pyzolib - Utilities for the Pyzo environment (Python 3) To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/pyzolib Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/pyzolib/pyzolib_0.3.3-2.dsc Changes since the last upload: * d/copyright: add full text of the BSD license. * d/watch: use pypi.debian.net. Regards, Ghislain Vaillant ---End Message--- ---BeginMessage--- Package pyzolib version 0.3.3-2 is in unstable now. https://packages.qa.debian.org/pyzolib---End Message---
Bug#790793: marked as done (RFS: python-bitstring/3.1.3-2)
Your message dated Thu, 02 Jul 2015 16:27:22 + with message-id e1zahkc-yh...@quantz.debian.org and subject line closing RFS: python-bitstring/3.1.3-2 has caused the Debian Bug report #790793, regarding RFS: python-bitstring/3.1.3-2 to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 790793: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=790793 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems ---BeginMessage--- Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package python-bitstring * Package name: python-bitstring Version : 3.1.3-2 Upstream Author : Scott Griffiths sc...@griffiths.name * URL : http://scott-griffiths.github.io/bitstring/ * License : Expat Section : python It builds those binary packages: python-bitstring - Python module for manipulation of binary data (Python 2) python-bitstring-doc - Python module for manipulation of binary data (documentation) python3-bitstring - Python module for manipulation of binary data (Python 3) To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/python-bitstring Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/python-bitstring/python-bitstring_3.1.3-2.dsc More information about hello can be obtained from http://www.example.com. Changes since the last upload: * d/control: add missing VCS information. * d/patches: add fix-testsuite-discovery.patch. * d/rules: enable test suite. Regards, Ghislain Vaillant ---End Message--- ---BeginMessage--- Package python-bitstring version 3.1.3-2 is in unstable now. https://packages.qa.debian.org/python-bitstring---End Message---
Bug#790300: marked as done (RFS: autoconf-archive/20150224-1)
Your message dated Thu, 02 Jul 2015 16:27:20 + with message-id e1zahka-xw...@quantz.debian.org and subject line closing RFS: autoconf-archive/20150224-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #790300, regarding RFS: autoconf-archive/20150224-1 to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 790300: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=790300 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems ---BeginMessage--- Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal [important for RC bugs, wishlist for new packages] Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package autoconf-archive * Package name: autoconf-archive Version : 20150224-1 Section : devel It builds those binary packages: autoconf-archive - Autoconf Macro Archive autoconf-gl-macros - Autoconf OpenGL Macro Archive -- transitional dummy package To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/autoconf-archive Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/a/autoconf-archive/autoconf-archive_20150224-1.dsc More information about hello can be obtained from http://www.example.com. Changes since the last upload: autoconf-archive (20150224-1) unstable; urgency=medium * Update copyright file. * Add enhences autoconf. * Add upstream/metadata file. * Add uscan gpg support. * Fix Lintian warnings. * Bump standards-version (no changes). * New upstream version(Closes: #787757): - Bug fix: Warnings in ax_have_opengl.m4, thanks to Alexander Inyukhin (Closes: #750762). Regards, bastien roucaries ---End Message--- ---BeginMessage--- Package autoconf-archive version 20150224-1 is in unstable now. https://packages.qa.debian.org/autoconf-archive---End Message---
Bug#790816: RFS: roxterm/3.0.1-1
Control: tag -1 + moreinfo Control: owner -1 ! Hi Tony, On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Tony Houghton h...@realh.co.uk wrote: Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package roxterm * Package name: roxterm Version : 3.0.1-1 Upstream Author : Tony Houghton h...@realh.co.uk * URL : http://roxterm.sourceforge.net * License : GPL2+ Section : x11 It builds these binary packages: roxterm- Multi-tabbed GTK+/VTE terminal emulator - binaries roxterm-data - Multi-tabbed GTK+/VTE terminal emulator - data files roxterm-dbg - Debugging symbols for roxterm roxterm-gtk3 - Multi-tabbed GTK+/VTE terminal emulator - transitional package roxterm-gtk3-dbg - Multi-tabbed GTK+/VTE terminal emulator - transitional package To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/roxterm Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/r/roxterm/roxterm_3.0.1-1.dsc More information about roxterm can be obtained from http://roxterm.sourceforge.net Changes since the last upload: roxterm (3.0.1-1) unstable; urgency=medium * Updated Standards-Version to 3.9.6. * Build uses python3 (updated Build-Depends accordingly). * Upstream tarball now uses .xz compression. * Added Select All menu item. * Allow unlimited scrollback lines. * Fixed some unsafe uses of sprintf. * Provide option to rewrap text when terminal width changes. * Drop support for GTK2 etc (Closes: #790183). * Reorganized surviving binary packages. * Use vte-2.91 API (Closes: #788028). -- Tony Houghton h...@realh.co.uk Wed, 01 Jul 2015 18:50:46 +0100 roxterm (2.9.7-1) unstable; urgency=low * Fixed colour/shortcut shceme CLI switch clash. * Fixed --tab aiming to target most recently focused window. -- Tony Houghton h...@realh.co.uk Mon, 30 Mar 2015 18:24:17 +0100 roxterm (2.9.6-1) unstable; urgency=low * debian/copyright: Added .ycm_extra_conf.py.in. * Fade text in unselected tabs. * Fix maximise and full screen buttons in profile. -- Tony Houghton h...@realh.co.uk Thu, 08 Jan 2015 21:16:21 + I thought I had released 2.9.6-1 and 2.9.7-1 via sponsorship too, but for some reason the current version in unstable is still 2.9.5-1. Is the changelog OK as above or should I merge these entries? Please merge the above d/changelog entries. I just skimmed the debdiff between 2.9.5-1 and your package on mentors and noticed a few small things: - your newly added d/copyright stanza for .ycm_extra_conf.py.in has a License: GPL-3+ header, but the license body references GPL-2 multiple times. - d/rules: CFLAGS = $(shell dpkg-buildflags | grep '^CFLAGS=') is quite brittle; I suggest using dpkg-buildflags --get CFLAGS instead (ditto for CPPFLAGS and LDFLAGS) Regarding your package split, have you tested other possible upgrade scenarios? There's a few scenarios I can think of that are broken or not ideal: - A user who just has roxterm-gtk2 installed (and roxterm-common auto-installed), without the roxterm metapackage, will not get any updates because both of these packages are no longer built from src:roxterm - A user has roxterm-gtk2 and roxterm-gtk2-dbg installed. Aside from the same problem as the first scenario, if he/she now chooses to apt-get install roxterm-dbg, (I think) dpkg will explode due to file conflicts between roxterm-gtk2-dbg and roxterm-dbg. And perhaps other scenarios as well, but that's all for now since my lunch break is over. :) You should actually keep around dummy transitional packages for every single package that's currently no longer being built from src:roxterm. That's probably the simplest way of making sure all possible upgrade scenarios work (+ double checking package inter-relationships are correct). Regards, Vincent -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CACZd_tDJLG5HzjZu=1uW=jmtgrbzyzmatfc+jkmd-8fpsha...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#790895: RFS: h5py/2.5.0-1
uploaded Fred -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/a2a20ec3b8560d408356cac2fc148e53b2172...@sun-dag3.synchrotron-soleil.fr
Re: Restructuring roxterm packaging (was Replacing roxterm's multiple binary packages with one)
Hi Tony, Sorry, just saw your roxterm RFS and realized that I actually never got back to you with your latest set of questions. On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 5:49 AM, Tony Houghton h...@realh.co.uk wrote: That won't cause problems due to the reversed dependencies? One disadvantage I can foresee is that this will cause everybody who automatically upgrades from version 2.x to have this virtual package installed. Is Provides definitely the wrong thing to do? Provides (i.e. using virtual packages) is not meant to be used to facilitate upgrades (Policy 3.6 describes their intended purpose [1]). Transitional packages with the appropriate depends+breaks+replaces package inter-relationships is the proper way of renaming packages, and shouldn't cause any problems if done right. If I do use a new dummy package I think it would be a good idea to notify users that they can remove it, or is it not important enough to justify potentially interrupting the upgrade process? And is NEWS.Debian the correct mechanism for such messages? IMHO if the upgrade process doesn't require any manual user intervention, there's no point in notifying users via debian/NEWS (I know apt-listchanges will read debian/NEWS, not sure about debian/NEWS.Debian). And having packages be renamed shouldn't require any user intervention (dummy packages can be kept installed indefinitely and not cause any issues). On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 6:28 AM, Tony Houghton h...@realh.co.uk wrote: Would it be a good idea to show a message when installing the new dummy package, recommending that users remove it, and if so, is NEWS.Debian the correct way to do that? (answered above?) And I'm wondering whether it would be better to aim to remove such a transitional package quite soon, or keep it until after the next release of Debian. I think the latter would help ease upgrades indefinitely, but typical roxterm users are probably more likely to track testing or unstable than to only upgrade at stable Debian releases. Please keep the transitional package around for at least one full release cycle. It's not safe to assume that all roxterm users only track testing/unstable, and there's little cost to you as maintainer to keep around a dummy package to facilitate oldstable-stable upgrades (nothing more than an extra binary package stanza in d/control, really) so that stable users can have painfree upgrades. Regards, Vincent [1] https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-binary.html#s-virtual_pkg -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CACZd_tBJSia=auqv2h4rzjqncz2uofsoq9q3gesjz70rgvd...@mail.gmail.com
