-=| Julian Mehnle, Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 01:34:38AM +0000 |=- > Niko Tyni wrote: > > I'm still not sure if it's worth it to rename, though. > > Gregor Herrmann wrote: > > Considering the arguments with versioned dependencies I'm inclined to > > propose to stick with the current name. > > Cost: This would be a one-time action, and we can easily supply a dummy > "libmime-perl" binary package that depends on the renamed binary package > for backwards compatibility. > > Benefit: Less confusion for all users searching for the package providing > MIME-tools / MIME::Tools in the future.
I am for renaming (plus a transitional package).
If we want to get rid of the transitional package, here's how to get the
list of packages, depending on libmime-perl, by maintainer
$ apt-cache rdepends libmime-perl|grep '^ '|sed 's/[ |]//g'|sort|uniq|dd-list
--stdin --nou
(36 packages; 4 of them - "ours; 28 distinct maintainers)
And here's the same for Build-Depending (replace ${mirror} with your
mirror):
$ grep-dctrl -F Build-Depends,Build-Depends-Indep -r libmime-perl -s
Source:Package
/var/lib/apt/lists/${mirror}_debian_dists_sid_main_source_Sources|sed
's/Source: //'|dd-list --stdin --nou
(9 packages; 5 of them "ours"; 5 maintainers)
After bugging maintainers to change their (Build-)Depends, we can file an RM bug
for libmime-perl (then dummy) package on ftp.debian.org.
This would take months. I am wondering if we can use an exception from
the policy here :)
--
dam JabberID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
