On 02/07/2024 20:46, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
Alec Leamas dijo [Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 01:59:26AM +0200]:
So, at least three possible paths:
1. Persuade users to uninstall PPA packages before installing official
packages and also generation 2 PPA packages with sane versions like 5.10.x
2. Use versions like 9000.5.10, 9000.5.12. etc.
3. Use an epoch.
You can also consider a third possible path: Pick a different package
name.
I am unfamiliar with opencpn to be able to suggest an alternative. But
given opencpn has never been part of Debian, you could just name your
package "opencpn-deb". Just to be sure users don't get surprised by
having two different versions of the same package, it can "Conflict:
opencpn". Then, you get a blank slate from which you can work your
versioning as you deem adequate.
It does, yes, introduce some confusion, but I think is the least evil
option.
opencpn is part of Debian since many years. However, the major
distribution is through an Ubuntu PPA, the official Debian package is
not that visible and of course outdated in Ubuntu.
opencpn users are counted in at least thousands. We are trying to
convince the developer community that it's a good idea to use a package
created as an official Debian package rather than an auto-generated
cmake package distributed using the Ubuntu PPA.
If the condition for this is to change the package name, the idea to use
the official package will fail; the package name has some substantial
mindshare. In other words, this would probably be a even harder sell to
upstream than the 9000.5.10 ideas floated earlier in this thread.
Russ Allbery has phrased the overall considerations applicable also to
this idea earlier in this thread [1].
Cheers!
--alec
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2024/07/msg00029.html
