Re-inserting package with name change
Hi, I am working to re-insert a package that was removed three years ago. Since the package name is quite short, I also changed its name: the package name was fv [1], and I changed it to ftools-fv [2]. As recommended, I also exhumed the bugs that were closed by the package removal. They will be fixed by the new package; the changelog contains the appropriate Closes: #259548 entry. However, when uploading to mentors.debian.net, the QA information contains the error Package closes bugs in a wrong way: Bug #259548 does not belong to this package [3]. Shall I just ignore this error? Or shall I assign the bugs to the new (still unknown to the system) package name ftools-fv? Another question is whether I need to somehow propagate the name change. in debian/control, I have set Conflicts: fv; Replaces: fv Should I also set Provides: fv? This would pollute the package namespace again with a virtual package of this short name which was the main reason to change it. [1] http://packages.qa.debian.org/f/fv.html [2] http://bugs.debian.org/682205 [3] https://mentors.debian.net/package/ftools-fv Best regards Ole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/ytzmx1gbp3k@news.ole.ath.cx
Re: Re-inserting package with name change
Hi, On 27.08.2012 12:34, Olе Streicher wrote: Shall I just ignore this error? Or shall I assign the bugs to the new (still unknown to the system) package name ftools-fv? yes, in your case it is fine to ignore that error. Another question is whether I need to somehow propagate the name change. in debian/control, I have set Conflicts: fv; Replaces: fv Should I also set Provides: fv? This would pollute the package namespace again with a virtual package of this short name which was the main reason to change it. No, no special care is needed [*]. Technically you could even omit the Conflicts/Replaces as fv wasn't part of Squeeze either. Having that said it is a good idea to keep it for people who could have kept that package installed since 2004 (which may, or may not still work). At very least you can omit the relation for the release which is supposed to make it into Jessie+1, if Jessie features your package with Conflicts/Replaces. Providing fv does not make any sense unless there are packages which depend on it (there must not), or people might be upgrading with a fv package installed to hint apt but there is no support for upgrades beyond one release at time. [*] Your upload needs to clear NEW, however. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
