On 1/19/22 15:04, Bernhard Schmidt wrote:
On 19.01.22 20:34, Richard Laager wrote:2. I create transitional binary packages in src:ntpsec:
I got to thinking about this more. This won't work, because src:ntp is 1:4.2.8p15+dfsg-1 and src:ntpsec is 1.2.1+dfsg1-2. I would need an epoch (of 2, since ntp already has an epoch of 1) on ntpsec in order for src:ntpsec's transitional bin:ntp package to be newer than src:ntp's bin:ntp package.
It might be technically possible to build a binary package with different versioning, but even if it is: 1) I don't know how, and 2) I'm not sure whether that's a good idea, especially compared to the alternatives.
What do you think about the other approach of having src:ntp build the transitional packages?
I think that looks like this:
1. I split out ntpdig, as suggested in #1003966. This is presumably
ntpsec-ntpdig for consistency with the rest being ntpsec-*.
2. You (or I adopt and) create transitional binary packages in src:ntp,
as 1:4.2.8p15+dfsg-2, 1:4.2.8p15+fake, 1:4.2.8p15+transitional,
1:4.2.8p16~transitional, or something else > 1:4.2.8p15+dfsg-1, with
an empty upstream tarball:
ntp -> ntpsec
ntp-doc -> ntpsec-doc
ntpdate -> ntpsec-ntpdate
sntp -> ntpsec-ntpdig
with an sntp -> ntpdig symlink
3. Upload that to experimental. People review.
4. Upload to unstable.
5. After bookworm releases, you (or I, if I adopted src:ntp) request
removal of src:ntp.
--
Richard
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
