Hi Nicholas, On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 15:26:50 -0400 Nicholas D Steeves <s...@debian.org> wrote:
> I'm unfamiliar with runit, but does anything need to be done in the > mini-httpd package to support your work in this upload? there's no need for anything on mini-httpd side, however I plan to do a QA upload (a NEWS file) and later a RoQA for for mini-httpd-run. I will really appreciate if you are available to help with this. I didn't think deeply but my plan is roughly the following: * have the mini-httpd runscript added to runit-services * QA upload to mini-httpd-run, with a NEWS file (package scheduled for removal + instruction to migrate to runit-services). > I'd recommend filing a bug against > mini-httpd-run shortly after the upload of runit-services_0.7.0, > because otherwise someone might potentially see a neglected package > and then adopt it. This bug would make the plan from your commit > message more visible and official. Right, I need to file a bug at this point or shortly before the QA upload * (after trixie): RoQA for removal of the mini-httpd-run package (reason: orphaned, low popcon count, maintained alternative exists, small package design rejected by FTP masters in the past) > > Also, thank you for thinking about smoothing the transition for users > by using Provides; although, I wonder how this will actually function, > because mini-httpd-run's version 1.0+nmu1 >> runit-services' 0.7.0. I'm not entirely sure how Provides works: my hope is that with the current unversioned provides, when mini-httpd-run is removed and one does "apt-get install mini-httpd-run" apt will at least throw a warning saying that the package has no candidate to install but another package (runit-services) provides it. > You're right, Conflicts isn't required and it doesn't seem like Breaks > would be appropriate either. Have you considered using versioned > Provides? This would make it more clear, in dependency resolution, > that mini-httpd-run is now an obsolete cruft package. I think mini-httpd-run is a leaf package but even if something depends on it might not be sensible to automatically bring in a package with 50 runscripts in place of a one with only one specific runscript. At least I want to give mini-httpd-run users the chance to read the NEWS file and react first. Regards, Lorenzo > > > https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#virtual-packages-provides > > Alternatively if the transition requires user/sysadmin intervention, > then why wouldn't a debian/NEWS file be a good thing? > > Kind regards, > Nicholas
