On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 11:06:07AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > On Sun 17 Jan 2021 at 12:12AM GMT, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 6:39 PM Moritz Muehlenhoff <j...@debian.org> wrote: > >> > >> Package: ftp.debian.org > >> Severity: normal > >> X-Debbugs-Cc: sudipm.mukher...@gmail.com, ilias...@debian.org > >> > >> Please remove offlineimap. It depends on Python and upstream won't port it > >> to Python 3. There's however a fork, which has been packaged as > >> src:offlineimap3 > >> (and removing this obsolete package allows adding a transitional package > >> eventually) > > > > I was asking in > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=937184#76 if it will > > be easier to update offlineimap and mark the binary package as > > transitional package instead of removing it and then going via bin-NEW > > ? If offlineimap is removed and I add it as transitional package in > > offlineimap3 then it will need an epoch in the version. > > IMO avoiding an epoch is a good reason to keep this source package > around for a few more months just to build the transitional package; if > this is what you want to do, please close this bug.
That said, there is no techinical reason to not do that within the
offlineimap3 source package, just use `dpkg-gencontrol -v` in d/rules to
set the appropriate version string for the "offlineimap" binary package.
That said, I encourage you to do so *now* rather than in a few months:
that way src:python-imaplib2 can drop its python2 package and
offlineimap3 can migrate to testing, with its transitional package,
therefore giving stable users an upgrade path.
Or is there any reason offlineimap3 should not be in bullseye?
--
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo
GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`.
More about me: https://mapreri.org : :' :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
