IMHO it is nice to preserve git history for a source-package rename like this, but given reverse dependencies, I don't think you can rename the package on Salsa -- instead setup a new fork under the Go team umbrella, and continue packaging of the new renamed variant, which needs its own ITP bug as it will go through NEW. Then file bugs on all reverse dependencies (with upstream reports) to migrate to the new package name.
It was unfortunate that history wasn't preserved here, but I'm not sure if a lot can be done about this -- but please merge any changes from the old packaging into the new packaging that was accidentally lost. So I think you original plan was great, but #1139314 could have been a WNPP ITP bug with 'affects' on the old (and new) packaging so that nobody else goes and claim the new package. /Simon Nick Morrott <[email protected]> writes: > Dear team, > > Looking for some advice here: > > Per bug https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1139314, the > upstream for the above package moved to codeberg. I updated and > renamed the source package and pushed the changes to salsa [0] > recently. > > [0] > https://salsa.debian.org/go-team/packages/golang-code.rocketnine-tslocum-cbind > > However, 10 days after the above bug was filed, another team member > (ajqlee) separately filed an ITP and directly uploaded the library to > salsa [0] and the archive, with no reference to the existing source > package, bug report, salsa repository [1] or current reverse deps. Per > the ITP it is a dep for golang-github-noborus-ov. > > [1] https://salsa.debian.org/go-team/packages/golang-codeberg-tslocum-cbind > > > Observations: > > *) there are now 2 different versions of the same library in the > archive under different package names, and 2 different salsa repos > > *) the new salsa repository has no history of previous Debian releases > > *) the existing salsa repository maintains the history and provides > the same upstream source version, but which is not in the archive > > *) the reverse dependencies using this library are not updated > (AFAICS) to use the new package name > > > The ideal situation would seem to be to have the full Debian release > history of the renamed library package available in a single repo on > salsa (as with previous Go package renames). > > How best to proceed? > > Thanks, > Nick >
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
