On Sun, Jan 20, 2019, at 14:05, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > How about starting a sort of transition to the split packages instead?
Looks like a sensible approach to me. > • upload rng-tools 2-unofficial-mt.14-2 to buster-proposed-updates > (since, due to the version number, it cannot go via unstable), > unchanged from 2-unofficial-mt.14-1 except for a NEWS entry saying: > > “This is the last 2.x version of rng-tools. If you wish to > continue using it, perhaps if you rely on the new command > line options this version has over rng-tools5, please > migrate to the rng-tools-debian package, also available > in buster, instead. If you do so, copy your configuration > settings from /etc/default/rng-tools over to the new file > /etc/default/rng-tools-debian after installing the new package. > > “If you have newer or high-bandwidth HWRNGs or just wish to > follow Debian defaults, migrate to the package rng-tools5, > also available in buster, instead. Please note that it does > not use a file under /etc/defaults/ to configure. > > “If you do nothing, your version of rng-tools will be replaced > with rng-tools5 automatically in bullseye.” > > • keep rng-tools5 and rng-tools-debian in testing > > • after buster, drop src:rng-tools and move the binary package > rng-tools to the rng-tools5 source package as transitional > package, as announced in the above-mentioned NEWS > > ⇒ this will cause the least breakage or surprise to users, > retain version numbers that are actually meaningful, and > start a proper, two-release, transition *and* ensure that > people know about the configuration files Agreed. > I’d be willing to try to coordinate this (also with the release > team since we have to go via p-u). Thank you, please do! > Please do tell me what you think, but *do* refrain from taking > hasty actions (even though we need to get this settled within > ten days or so). Also agreed. Anyone has a better idea for a transition plan? -- Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[email protected]>
