On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 11:12:58PM -0300, Eriberto wrote: > Hi Adrian, Hi Eriberto,
> Em ter., 20 de jun. de 2023 às 18:18, Adrian Bunk <b...@debian.org> escreveu: >... > > A shared library package libjodycode2 provides the shared library > > libjodycode.so.2, and not providing it breaks reverse dependencies. > > > > libjodycode2 must either provide libjodycode.so.2 by shipping it > > or depending on a package that does ship it, or libjodycode2 must > > be dropped. Anything other than dropping it would be highly unusual. > > > In at the moment, only jdupes depends of the libjodycode"X" on Debian, > so I think that libjodycode2 (transitional) must be dropped, right? > (jdupes 1.24 was replaced by jdupes 1.25, that depends of the > libjodycode3). A transitional libjodycode2 shouldn't ever have existed since it causes breakage of reverse dependencies (in this case only jdupes). Never having libjodycode2 would also automatically make it an auto- transition at [1] showing what packages need rebuilding. > > A transitional package libjodycode2-dev would be possible, > > but there is no real benefit for a just created package. > > > > The -dev package should be named libjodycode-dev, > > which is a stable name. > > What is the right way to make this? Renaming to libjodycode-dev, > dropping libjodycode3-dev and sending again to NEW? Should I use > Breaks and Replaces to make a reference to libjodycode3-dev? Sounds like a good plan to me. > Thanks for your attention. > > Cheers, > > Eriberto cu Adrian [1] https://release.debian.org/transitions/
