Hello,
I agree if the migration is not automatic, there is no need to provide the old
name.
thanks for the explanation!
G.
Il giovedì 4 luglio 2019, 08:58:30 CEST, Nikos Tsipinakis
<ni...@tsipinakis.com> ha scritto:
On 03/07, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> Hello Nikos,you might want to first upload the fork in new queue, providing
>the same binary, so the removal becomes a cruft later
> I mean, to not disrupt our userbase:
> with moving src:a providing a to src:b providing b
> [...]
> in case the fork is not a drop-in replacement, probably providing the old
> binary name is not worth the effort, in this caseyou can do whatever you
> prefer :)
The fork is functionally a drop-in equivalent, however given that the name
changed this also means that a) the name of the binary changed so everyone will
have to swap that out and that b) the name of the configuration directories
changed. There's an automated migration on the fork but it only works with
the simplest setups and fails in other cases.
Newsbeuter has had the fork on its Recommends for a while and I've put out a
NEWS entry informing about the change.
Overall given that there will need to be some manual migration from the users
side I'm not sure it's worth trying to do a proper package rename here.
Adding a new "newsbeuter" binary while in reality being newsboat would be a lot
more confusing than the alternative IMO.
