Le 03/09/2018 à 17:29, Markus Koschany a écrit : > Just updating libequinox-osgi-java would have been > a straightforward solution.
I agree this is mostly a change in the name of the binary package. I could have kept the libequinox-osgi-java name with some contortions and avoid updating the reverse dependencies, or at least provide a dummy transitional package in src:equinox-framework. However updating src:libequinox-osgi-java was not possible with the packaging strategy adopted, because the eclipse-osgi bundle is just a small part of the wider equinox-framework project, and I opted to use the whole project as the upstream source instead of cutting source packages at the bundle level. There is now a 1:1 mapping between the upstream Git repositories and the Debian source packages (which allows perfect debian/watch tracking), and there is a 1:1 mapping between the OSGi bundles and the Debian binary packages (with the name of the package derived automatically from the bundle name). This model allowed me to efficiently package ~60 bundles so far with a uniform naming and versioning scheme. And we could have even more bundles in the future if we go deeper in the Eclipse ecosystem (equinox-p2 alone could add ~50 bundles). From this perspective the fate of a single bundle is not that significant, but I should have better explained.
