submitter 490265 ! reopen 490265 found 490265 2.8.7dev9-1.1 thanks On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, Andreas Metzler wrote: > On 2008-07-11 Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > clone 369386 -1 > > retitle -1 lynx-cur should be called lynx; ditch lynx transition package > > severity -1 important > > thanks > > Why is this "important"? It looks like a purely cosmetical question. > (minor or wishlist.)
Because it's something that should be resolved prior to release, and probably should even be RC. It certainly isn't the kind of breakage that should be introduced in an NMU. > > On Sat, 28 Jun 2008, Andreas Metzler wrote: > > > We end up with a dummy package lynx that depends on lynx-cur. (I think > > > we should keep it permanently.) It should work correctly, lynx > > > configuration files are handled as good as possible on upgrades: > > > > > > - if they are not modified locally thy are simply removed. > > > - Otherwise they are moved to /etc/lynx-cur/ *unless* the config > > > files in _that_ directory already exist. > > > Why do we need a lynx transition package which depends on a lynx-cur > > package instead of just having a single lynx package? > > We can either have a lynx package and a lynx-cur transition package > or the other way round if we want to provide upgrade path for users > of both packages. We definetly don't need to release with the lynx-cur transition package, since we've never released with it.[1] Furthermore, by switching to lynx-cur, you instantly break local configurations in /etc/lynx for no real gain. > I chose the latter in the NMU since there did not seem to be a > strong preference for either by the lynx or the lynx-cur maintainer. > > Upgrading the lynx package to use 2.8.7dev9 sources would have been > a lot more disruptive, requiring bigger changes than providing a > lynx transtion package. (Mainly due to the existence of > lynx-cur-wrapper.) Not a thing to be done in a NMU imho. And I do > not want to adopt/hijack/maintain it. By uploading a lynx binary package which was a transition, you *did* effectively hijack the lynx package, whether you meant to or not. It's certainly not Kohda's responsibility to deal with any of the breakage resulting. This is the sort of change that should not be made in an NMU without the explicit blessing of the maintainer of both packages concerned unless you plan on hijacking, adopting, or being seriously involved in the maintenance of both. At the same time that such an upload is made, a request for removal of the lynx-cur or lynx package should also have been made, coupled with the triaging and possible reassignment of lynx-cur or lynx bugs to the new set of binary packages. Don Armstrong 1: Transitioning in unstable would be nice, but it's certainly not required, and could easily be handled by a tiny source stub package which did not transition. -- J.W. Grant: "Bastard!" Rico: "Yes, Sir. In my case, an accident of birth. But you, Sir, you're a self-made man." -- Henry "Rico" Fardan in "The Professionals" http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
