On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 07:59:38PM +0100, Alessandro Ghedini wrote: > Hi all, > I've just adopted the bug #520271 (RFA: ecasound2.2), I think it is a good > candidate to get maintained by the Multimedia Team. > > The main problem I see is that the source package is named 'ecasound2.2' > even if the current version is 2.7.0 (2.7.2 if you consider upstream). > >From the README.Debian: > > ecasound2.2 release was a major change from 2.0 series; > and that was the reason for ecasound2.2 package name; we had two > versions to coexist. > > For transition purposes Debian source package name still retains > the ecasound2.2 name. > > I think this may lead to confusion and renaming the source package to just > 'ecasound' would make things cleaner and clearer. AFAIK a solution would be > to upload the new 'ecasound' and ask for removal for the 'ecasound2.2'. > Is this right?
Having had a look, I agree it would be cleaner for the source package to be named ecasound. And for all the others to be renamed, too. $ grep Package: debian/control Package: ecasound Package: libecasound2.2-dev Package: libecasoundc2.2-dev Package: libkvutils2.2-dev Package: python-ecasound2.2 Package: libecasound-ruby1.8 (??) Package: ecasound-el Here is the output from 'apt-cache showpkg' on my sid distribution. Package: ecasound2.2 Reverse Depends: ecasound,ecasound2.2 2.3.2-1 Package: libecasound2.2-dev Reverse Depends: Package: libecasoundc2.2-dev Reverse Depends: Package: libkvutils2.2-dev Reverse Depends: libecasound2.2-dev,libkvutils2.2-dev Package: python-ecasound2.2 Reverse Depends: ecasound,python-ecasound2.2 2.7.0-1.1 Package: libecasound-ruby1.8 Reverse Depends: All of the packages depending on these packages appear to be within the ecasound source package. Based on this information, it looks like we could go through a renaming without harming others. If we need to be extra-careful, we could use Provides: field to supply aliases to the old package names. Does that seem right? > Also, there are a lot of problems with the packaging (e.g. 24 lintian > warnings, "ancient" packaging and a lot of mess with the generated binary > packages) that would probably make easier to re-start packaging from > scratch (this would be made easier by replacing 'ecasound2.2' with > 'ecasound', see above). What do you think? You must have done a lot since then; there are only a few lintian warnings left. Best, Joel > Cheers -- Joel Roth _______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers