On Friday den 25 January 2008, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > On 25/01/2008, Frank Küster wrote: > > I don't think these bugs should be closed without considering the type > > of the removed package. If it's just gotten useless or uninteresting, > > no problem. But if there's some kind of successor (like foo2 in a new > > source package, iceweasel to firefox, or TeXLive to teTeX) then the > > maintainer should check whether the old bug still applies to the new > > package. > > Speaking of which, would it make sense somehow to track these > successors? One might think of an additional source field for the > control file. I know it's quite easy to remember firefox -> iceweasel, > but that might help tracking successors over years, even if they aren't > as famous as that one.
A field called "Supersedes:" could also replace transitional packages if apt
would automatically replace superseded packages with the superseding ones.
Simple renames as well as merging and splitting can be handled. Possibly the
superseding package should still conflict with and replace the old package,
unless it should be allowed to stay. Hmm, wouldn't that make Supersedes: a
reverse Depends: (or reverse Recommends, if that feels better)?
--
Magnus Holmgren [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(No Cc of list mail needed, thanks)
"Exim is better at being younger, whereas sendmail is better for
Scrabble (50 point bonus for clearing your rack)" -- Dave Evans
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
