On 2008-07-11 Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > clone 369386 -1 > retitle -1 lynx-cur should be called lynx; ditch lynx transition package > severity -1 important > thanks
Why is this "important"? It looks like a purely cosmetical question. (minor or wishlist.) > On Sat, 28 Jun 2008, Andreas Metzler wrote: > > We end up with a dummy package lynx that depends on lynx-cur. (I think > > we should keep it permanently.) It should work correctly, lynx > > configuration files are handled as good as possible on upgrades: > > > > - if they are not modified locally thy are simply removed. > > - Otherwise they are moved to /etc/lynx-cur/ *unless* the config > > files in _that_ directory already exist. > Why do we need a lynx transition package which depends on a lynx-cur > package instead of just having a single lynx package? We can either have a lynx package and a lynx-cur transition package or the other way round if we want to provide upgrade path for users of both packages. I chose the latter in the NMU since there did not seem to be a strong preference for either by the lynx or the lynx-cur maintainer. Upgrading the lynx package to use 2.8.7dev9 sources would have been a lot more disruptive, requiring bigger changes than providing a lynx transtion package. (Mainly due to the existence of lynx-cur-wrapper.) Not a thing to be done in a NMU imho. And I do not want to adopt/hijack/maintain it. > Clearly we're not going to have another lynx package, and having > lynx-cur when we've never made a release of it seems silly. > Furthermore, the debconf prompt about the /etc/lynx configuration file > is just useless. Indeed, that's #489485. cu andreas -- `What a good friend you are to him, Dr. Maturin. His other friends are so grateful to you.' `I sew his ears on from time to time, sure' -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
