On 2026-01-01 Simon Josefsson <[email protected]> wrote: > The 'gnulib' source package has built and shipped the binary package > 'git-merge-changelog' but now upstream split this off into a proper > package and there is a release of it:
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/info-gnu/2025-12/msg00009.html > I filed the ITP below to package it and Salsa builds it fine: > https://salsa.debian.org/debian/git-merge-changelog/-/pipelines > However, how to handle this situation where a NEW package takes over the > name of an existing package? Is that a good idea? > Should we make an upload of 'gnulib' that drops the binary package, let > that migrate to testing, and then upload git-merge-changelog to NEW? > Will that cause any problems wrt package naming in the future? > Thoughts? Hello, The archive should handle this perfectly fine, the only requirement is that the version-number of the the new binary package is higher than the old one. I think an epoch is the correct way to do this. > If the source name of git-merge-changelog below causes confusion, maybe > we could use upstream's other name 'vc-changelog' however as far as I > understand, 'vc-changelog' is an umbrella project that currently is only > hosting the 'git-merge-changelog' sub-project, so this is not ideal. [...] I think your reading that git-merge-changelog is the best name for the source package is the right one. cu Andreas
