Daniel Leidert wrote: > Hm. I'm sure, I commented your last mail. But it seems, I don't even > have a copy of my answer. Sorry for that. So in short:
Thanks. :) [...] > (2) The idea of the transition is simple: No maintainer needs to change > anything manually. By introducing the change to create snippets calling > update-sgmlcatalog the required version of sgml-base in the resulting > packages is just bumped. The old name would stay (as a link) for at > least next stable+1 but create a warning. IMO this is legal. I saw this > for several other tools. The warning wouldn't require any action. Sure, there is no law against this. Perhaps the warning could be suppressed with --remove, so normal upgrades would not see it? This would also require a bump in $sgmlbasever. I suppose that's fine. I can send patches to sgml-base and debhelper along these lines if you'd like. > The > next build/ upload of the affected package would fix the situation > automatically. Of course one could do a mass binary-nmu, but by waiting > for next-stable+1 before removing the command, the amount of packages > requiring such an action would be minimal. I like the idea of a compatibility command (for non-Debian packages and for release team sanity) but also think a mass binary-nmu would be a good idea. Thanks again. I've always been pretty happy with how SGML and XML support (and especially docbook) are packaged in Debian. Regards, Jonathan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
