Executive summary: I'm planning on renaming the vips7.10 packages to get the "7.10" out of the package name unless someone tells me that I shouldn't. I've discussed this on debian-mentors already. Read on for the copious details.
----------------------------- The recent threads on sonames and package names convinced me beyond a doubt that I made a mistake in the names of the vips packages. I had reasons at the time, but in retrospect, they were wrong. I now intend to rename the packages. I discussed it on debian-mentors and have prepared everything for upload and have tested it thoroughly, but I wanted to run it past debian-devel before doing the actual upgrade. Right now, vips7.10 has only been in the archive for a short time. There is only one dependent package in the archive which I also maintain. In other words, this is the right time to correct the mistake. Right now, the vips7.10 source package creates four binary packages: libvips7.10, libvips7.10-dev, libvips7.10-tools, and libvips7.10-doc. My intention is to do the following: Create new source package "vips" which will create four binary packages: libvips10, libvips-dev, libvips-tools, libvips-doc. (10 is the current soname.) Each package Conflicts with the package it replaces with a version << the future dummy transition version of the existing packages and Replaces the old package as well. For example: Package: libvips10 Conflicts: libvips7.10 (<< 7.10.dummy) Replaces: libvips7.10 Upload this package and wait for it to clear NEW. Upload new version of vips7.10 (currently 7.10.8-1) called 7.10.dummy-1 that creates four dummy packages in section "oldlibs" each of which installs no files (except the mandatory ones in /usr/share/doc) and depends upon its replacement package. The Description of the package includes the word "dummy", and is akin to this, as adjusted appropriately for each package: Package: libvips7.10 Description: transitional dummy package replaced by libvips10 This is the old name for libvips10. It can be safely removed. Upload new version of the package that depends upon libvips7.10 (nip2) replacing its dependencies and build dependencies as needed. (Dependencies will be automatic with the new shlibs file.) By doing this, anyone who has the current packages installed and does apt-get dist-upgrade will automatically get the new packages with the new names. They will also (unfortunately) have the dummy transition packages, but I see no way around that. Someone who explicitly apt-get installs the new packages prior to upgrading the old packages would have the old packages removed. For all the gory details, see this thread: http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2005/01/msg00240.html and particularly http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2005/01/msg00253.html I'm going to ask my usual sponsor to upload these in the next few days unless someone gives me a compelling reason not to. :-) In the interest of full disclosure, in the original ITP, David Moreno Garza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked why I was including the version number in the package name and I gave a reason. In retrospect, the reason wasn't really valid. Thanks! -- Jay Berkenbilt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.ql.org/q/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
