Control: tags -1 moreinfo The source package name is still being renamed, and the source package rename is not explictly stated in the changelog.
(I think this renane shouldn't be done, to keep the history of the package, not only the tracker but also the BTS and all the other services working on source packages.) (You should also bump the timestamp in the d/changelog, when uploading a new package to mentors.) The patch in package should be fowarded; as it only changes *comments*, consider dropping it completly. -- tobi On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 22:25:04 -0300 Lucas Castro <lu...@gnuabordo.com.br> wrote: > > Em 06/03/2024 05:49, Daniel Gröber escreveu: > > Hi Lucas, > > > > On Tue, Mar 05, 2024 at 03:29:49PM -0300, Lucas Castro wrote: > >>> Are you sure you want to change the source package name? Doing so fractures > >>> the history of the package on tracker.d.o and it's not really necessary. > >> The upstream has changed software name but it's a good point about > >> tracker.d.o. > > Right, so users will try to `apt install foolsm` in the future, but the > > source package name is largeley irellevant to them. > > > >>> Quick package review: > >>> > >>> - d/postinst: I don't think it's useful to print the message about editing > >>> the config. I've only seen packages do that in special circumstances, do > >>> you have a justification for it being necessary here? > >> Really, really not. I really would like improve that, I guess to write good > >> doc and manual pages is enough. > > I would argue users (sysadmins in this case) are going to be familiar with > > the concept of having to configure a package before it becomes useful and > > while the daemon not being started at package installation is > > unconventional in Debian automatic config reloading is by far not universal > > so any config change to make lsm useful is going to elicit a restart > > anyway. > > > > So I just don't see why we'd want a conspicuous message telling people what > > they already know :) > > > >>> - You declare Replaces+Conflicts on lsm but you don't seem to take any > >>> care for the new binary package to actually be compatible with the old > >>> one since the config location changed. > >> I'm in doubt, when the old config exist, if set dpkg to copy the old config > >> from old location to the new one or if I just print/show up a message to > >> users notifying about path update requirement. > > I think an automatic upgrade is the way to go in this case as long as the > > config format is still fully compatible to the old lsm-1.0.4, but since > > copying will leave cruft behind for the user to cleanup manually I think we > > should mv the config. > > > >> If it's good/allowed do the copy, it could be applied in postinst. I think > >> print/show up message is rightest way. > > Consider that people upgrade Debian systems for many, many years without > > reinstalling. So every bit of cruft we leave behind due to transitions such > > as this accumulates. I don't see a technical need for not doing so in this > > case so I think we should clean up behind ourselves and move the config to > > the new location. > > > > You should then absoluteley print a message in the log to note this fact, > > but perhaps not as conspicuously as you're printing the "configure me" > > message. Something like "Moving $OLD_PATH to $NEW_PATH" should suffice > > since the package(s) involved should be obvious from the filenames. > > Just uploaded to mentors again, now the update occur smoothly. > > > > > > --Daniel > > Thanks for taking time on testing update.
