On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Cameron Norman <camerontnor...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 4:38 AM, Mathieu Malaterre <ma...@debian.org> wrote: >> >> >> Which way should I go: >> >> 1. Upload a src:openjpeg1 which will contains the legacy openjpeg 1.x >> branch and src:openjepg will get openjpeg 2.x or >> 2. Upload a new src:openjpeg2 with the goal to get rid of src:openjpeg >> in a couple of debian release. > > > The former has the problem of people depending on openjpeg already and using > the 1.x API. Having a new package for the v2 API is better because people > have to explicitly use the new package+API, and they do not experience > sudden breakage.
Unless I missed your point: It did work somewhat ok for tiff3/tiff4 source packages AFAIK. No-one depends on source packages directly, right ? Let me clarify again, I use src: and :i386 (why not?) for disambiguation: Today we have: src:openjpeg which produces libopenjpeg5:i386 libopenjpeg-dev:i386 Tomorrow is there a difference in having: Scenario #1 src:openjpeg src:openjpeg1 [meant to disappear] which produces (in that order): libopenjpeg6:i386 libopenjpeg-dev:i386 libopenjpeg5:i386 libopenjpeg-dev:i386 Or Scenario #2 src:openjpeg [meant to disappear] src:openjpeg2 which produces (in that order): libopenjpeg5:i386 libopenjpeg-dev:i386 libopenjpeg6:i386 libopenjpeg-dev:i386 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/ca+7wusyewklveeu-dwqey3z_oma9tzhwkrqg+pmwrdthmzb...@mail.gmail.com
