On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 08:25:30PM +0200, Norwid Behrnd wrote: > Dear Antonio, > > Initially, package `ruby-gem` was assembled by `gem2deb` which is why I assume > it were acceptable to retain a name reflecting the language of implementation > in the name of the repository. Meanwhile, the RFS on mentors provides a .deb > which yields a package by name of `mdl` only. The syntax engaged relies on > the > example of Debian's Policy Manual (section 7.6.2) to remove (if existing) > earlier versions of the package on the fly with the elder name by a pattern of > > ``` > Provides: new_name > Conflicts: old_name > Replaces: old_name > ``` > > in file /debian/control. > > As far as currently understood, this lifts the need need to rename many > files/the repository, or to submit the package for review as an entirely new > one your suggestion would require. > > Do you think the package qualifies now as fit for upload?
Any new package, source or binary, requires a pass through NEW. i.e. if you keep the source package name (ruby-mdl), but add a new binary package (mdl), it has to go through NEW anyway. IMO it's better to save everyone's time and do that a single time; this is why I'm suggesting to just uploading a single new source package that provides both the new binary and the transitional package to supersede the old binary package.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
