On Sun, Mar 04, 2018 at 10:04:46PM +0100, Georg Faerber wrote:
> Hi,
> On 18-03-03 16:30:36, Cédric Boutillier wrote:
> > ruby-factory-girl-rails fails to build because of dependency checking
> > looking for a factory_girl gemspec file instead of a factory_bot.
> > 
> > I don't know if it is better to fix factory-girl-rails gemspecs, or to
> > ship also the factor_girl.gemspec file too with ruby-factory-bot.
> Hm, I'm not really sure how to deal with this, as I already (tried?) to
> describe in one of my initial mails: Not only to name changed, but also
> code within, and no "compat helper / level" was introduced. This means,
> that code which depends on factory_girl needs to change as well.
> Upstream described the necessary steps regarding this [1].
> Given these circumstances, I'm not really sure if using 'Replaces' in
> d/control and providing a transitional package is the right way to go.
> What about introducing ruby-factory-bot as a new package without
> 'Breaks', 'Replaces' and a transitional package, and removing
> ruby-factory-girl once all upstreams of the reverse dependencies have
> changed to ruby-factory-bot?

If the new package is not backwards compatible, it should not have
breaks/replaces or anything like that. you need to make the old package
deprecated, report bugs against reverse dependencies, and wait for them
to switch to the new library.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to