Hello Jörg! you might feel somewhat lost, at least I'm feeling that way, so I'll try to sum up what changed (tl;dr, the current status quo seems to be appropriate and I think the package needs no changes right now).
You never answered to what Julien asked you, and his were legit questions: "libsane was renamed to libsane1 for apparently no good reason. Renames for library packages should be tied to ABI breakage (and associated SONAME changes). Either there was ABI breakage and the SONAME should be bumped (and Provides: libsane would be wrong), or there wasn't and the package name change ought to be reverted." I get your "hey, the soname was wrong and not matching upstream, change it and now they match" idea, and I think it had good reasons, but the problem is really another. You can't just change SONAME if you don't have good reasons to do it, and this was the reason for the whole mess. The flow chart is usually when an upstream library gets ABI breakages: 1) check for ABI changes and in case upstream SONAME didn't change, well this is an upstream issue, so ask them to release a new library and bump SONAME. Bumping it in Debian, without upstream doing it, is a mess, because third party libraries might start crashing if they find the linked library in the system, but with different ABI. 2) if upstream didn't change SONAME, and ABI didn't change, upload as-is in your case, what happened was a contradicting explanation for the renaming. You said "ABI changed, so the renaming is appropriate", but you started providing the old binary name in the new one. This is the error that has been pointed out by Release Team, and no answer has been provided for it (as far as I can see). Claiming an ABI change, and provide the old package, is a good way to tell apt to not enforce the upgrade of reverse-dependencies, and the best way you can have to make reverse-dependencies crash if that code is run :) So, to sum up, please provide some clear details about ABI changes, and in that case contact upstream to make them aware of the issue. Otherwise, the current package might be ok as-is. thanks for understanding, don't hesitate to contact me also privately in case I missed something, or I didn't explain my reasoning correctly. Gianfranco
