On 2025-05-14, Soren Stoutner <[email protected]> wrote: > 1. Should I create an ITP for the new source package, even though the binary > package it produces is not new? Something about creating an ITP that > includes > an epoch feels off to me.
I would consider an ITP here 'useless busywork' - if people want to work on it, they would contact you anyways and not look for a itp to avoid double work. To me, ITP's are advisory locking to avoid having several work on the same thing and maybe to gauge reactions if what you want to package might be controversial to get feedback before doing the work. > 2. When moving the binary package to a new source package, should the old > changelog be preserved? It seems even weirder to me to have a one-line > changelog that says “Initial release” that already contains an epoch. I'd just do "initial separate source release. Split out from src:<otherpackage>" or something like that. /Sune
