tags 962696 help clone 962696 -1 retitle -1 vrms should not be part of bullseye severity -1 serious tags -1 help
Hi Ivo,
thanks for filing this overdue idea in the BTS almost a year ago and sorry
for not responding earlier. FWIW, I fully agree and I agreed before yesterday
too (when RMS announced the FSF would let him join their board again), even
though I didn't reply to this bug until now, sigh & sorry for that.
So, what to rename this package too? vdfsg? virtual-dfsg? drm? (dfsg reminder
motivationer? or some such?)
Technically renaming is straight forward (just a bunch of find and sed commands)
once the future name has been choosen, though choosing the name is difficult.
Help and suggestions welcome.
And then, getting the transition and upgrades right is also a bit difficult,
though I'll plan an easy way. (=I probably don't plan to maintain a
/usr/bin/vrms
compability symlink or such.)
Last but not least, I'm unsure what to do with vrms in bullseye. I certainly
at least don't want vrms binary package in it, I could probably life with a
src:vrms package, but then again, if the release team were to allow a package
rename at this time of the bullseye release cycle, I suppose changing the
source package name as well (and only shipping a transitional vrms package)
would be ok too.
And then I'm thinking that just removing the whole package would be the least
work. sigh. (Though I know there are quite some fond users.)
Feedback/comments/suggestions much appreciated. (Though I will ignore those
argueing for keeping the vrms name.)
--
cheers,
Holger
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C
⠈⠳⣄
Because things are the way they are, things will not stay the way they are.
(Bertolt Brecht)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
