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 . > > 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.
Description: PGP signature