On Thursday, May 15, 2025 1:07:32 PM Mountain Standard Time Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > Soren Stoutner <so...@debian.org> writes: > > Manuel and I would like to split this into two source packages, based on > > these two upstream source repositories: > > > > https://github.com/OpenTaal/opentaal-hunspell > > > > https://github.com/OpenTaal/opentaal-wordlist > > > > The current dutch package has an epoch for reasons that happened before we > > were involved with the package: 1:2.20.19+1-1. > > This doesn't look right, because > > $ rmadison hunspell-nl -s unstable > hunspell-nl | 2:2.20.19+1-1 | unstable | all > > Ie: Wrong epoch, which I hope is just a typo. I also don't think > ftpmasters will agree that a NEW package should have an epoch... I'm > CCing -devel, because introducing epochs must be discussed there, and I > count a NEW package as introducing an epoch.
The changelog indeed says the current epoch is 1: https://salsa.debian.org/debian/dutch/-/blob/master/debian/changelog? ref_type=heads#L1 Also, tracker.debian.org says the same thing: https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/dutch It is interesting that rmadison says differently. Is this some automatic adjustment in dak? If so, I would imagine that it would make sense to adjust the epoch to 2 in package changelog. > > If we create a new source package named hunspell-nl, it would also > > need to have the same epoch. > > Why not take the opportunity to remove the epoch? The upstream names > are opentaal-hunspell and opentaal-wordlist, so why not: > > 1. Create src:opentaal-hunspell and src:opentaal-wordlist > 2. Use bin:opentaal-hunspell[-nl] and bin:opentaal-wordlist[-nl] > 3. Create a dutch metapackage in one of these two NEW src:opentaal.* > packages 4. Use versioned Provides, with epoch, in the dutch metapackage. I would love to, but the binary package names are not negotiable because they are set by Debian’s dictionary policy. For example, the hunspell-nl binary package needs to retain this name to match the other hunspell dictionaries. Similarly for aspell-nl, wdutch, and idutch. You can read over the policy with the following URL when the dictionaries- common-dev package is installed. file:///usr/share/doc/dictionaries-common-dev/dsdt-policy.html#AEN174 On Thursday, May 15, 2025 1:41:16 AM Mountain Standard Time Santiago Vila wrote: > El 15/5/25 a las 0:39, Soren Stoutner escribió: > > 2. When moving the binary package to a new source package, should the old > > changelog be preserved? It seems even weirder to me to have a one-line > > changelog that says “Initial release” that already contains an epoch. > > I think it depends on whether or not you consider the new source to be > a successor of the old one. > > For example, the hello package which did not use debhelper at first was > "forked" to hello-debhelper. Because it was a "fork", it retained the old > changelog. This is indeed a continuation of the existing upstream source, meaning that the source in the current package came from two different repositories (combined in a way different than what MUT would do). Creating a new source package and including the current changelog makes the most sense to me. -- Soren Stoutner so...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
