On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 07:06:22AM +0100, Christian PERRIER wrote: > > So, well, I'm very tempted to re-reassign the bug and then immediately > fix this myself in c-s git.
Well, go agead! :) Since a long time I am not interested in arguing. > Breaks and Provides are the right way to handle a transition. And that > is a transition. No, this isn't the right way, but it is more a matter of philosophy. Do you impose your way on the users because you think this is good for them? Or rather you give them the freedom to chose? Freedom comes for a price. The right way to deal with problems like this one in free software is to provide sensible defaults and help the users with information in case they want to change the defaults. Companies producing non-free software don't do this and they have their reasons not to do this but their reasons are not valid for us. > The alternative (particularly if we find too many reverse > dependencies) being just removing myself from Maintainers, orphaning > the package and just say "bye bye"...:-). Which, in some way, is doing > exactly what we should not be doing : leave our users in the wild. This is what I would do if I was in your position: 1. Document in README.Debian that the package is obsolete in favour of console-setup. Perhaps one can also mention some possible uses of the package. 2. Tell that the package is obsolete in favour of console-setup in the description of the package. 3. Orphan the package. Alternatively, if you prefer, you can ask the package to be removed from the archives, but this will be too drastic, in my opinion. Anton Zinoviev -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
