On Fri, 02 Dec 2016, Michael Stone wrote: > This has been pending with no action for more than 4 years now. Is there a > strategy for moving forward? I see 3 realistic options: > > 1) upload the new upstream with a big warning in NEWS that things will break
I consider this acceptable, but you yourself provided a better alternative... > 2) upload the new upstream with a new name (this is less than ideal, because > it will confuse people in perpetuity) Not really, you could just name it rng-tools4 and implement the transition you suggest in (3): > 3) transition the current package to something like rng-tools-debian-legacy > which replaces the current package with a transitional package and conflicts > with future versions of rng-tools based on upstream. put this in stretch and > upload upstream as rng-tools in stretch+1. This one looks like the better option to me. Someone uploads rng-tools4 (so there is new rng-tools in stretch). We rename the Debian rng-tools to rng-tools-debian-legacy, and add a conflicts with rng-tools4 and rng-tools (>= 4) we add the transitional rng-tools package (to keep it atomic, it can be created by the rng-tools-debian-legacy source package for stretch). For stretch+1, rng-tools-debian-legacy drops the transitional package, and rng-tools4 gets renamed to rng-tools. Or something to that effect. > If 1) is unacceptable then I'd like to see 3) happen in stretch so this > doesn't get dragged out for another release cycle. > > I've personally just been using the ubuntu package to get the functionality > that a lot of people are looking for, and it seems ridiculous for that to be > debian's solution for 8 years... Meh, I have requested help for it a long time ago. The RFH bug is from 2011. Will you maintain rng-tools4? -- Henrique Holschuh
