Hi! On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 10:29:34AM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote: > My plan is to upload what's in the libidn 'wip' branch once all of the > above packages are no longer in testing. Please review: > > https://salsa.debian.org/debian/libidn/-/compare/master...wip > > As you can see I'm not adding the 'Provides: libidn11-dev', as I don't > think it is actually needed. No packages in testing refer to > libidn11-dev. Things in oldstable may refer to libidn11-dev, but those > packages will be upgraded to trixie versions that no longer mention > libidn11-dev. As far as I can tell, the 'Provides: libidn11-dev' would > have been necessary if we wanted to drop libidn11-dev in sid/testing > before all the reverse dependencies were fixed, but I don't plan to do > that since we are so close to finishing the migration. Packages outside > of oldstable that refer to libidn11-dev had the bookworm release to > migrate away from the transitional package. Does this make sense? I'm > not 100% confident on this, package dependency handling during > migrations always seems to confuse me. I think it's still best (and most common practice, as recommended to me) to add a Provides: libidn11-dev ‒ there will be other packages, both in other archives and maintained outside of distribution ecosystems (or, indeed, setup scripts; apt install understands Provides:), that will keep being [Builds-]Depends: libidn11-dev (apt install libidn11-dev), and breaking them is unnecessarily adversarial toward the user. The Provides: should be kept indefinitely as the end-goal of the transition (and the transitional package is just the only way to get to this state).
So, /Suggests:/iProvides: libidn11-dev is IMO the best course of action, regardless of the state of the archive (but, of course, the rdeps should still switch to libidn-dev). Beside that, looks fine to me. Best,
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
