On Sat, 2024-10-05 at 20:15 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote: > Ben Hutchings <b...@decadent.org.uk> writes: > > > On Sat, 2024-10-05 at 12:31 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote: > > [...] > > > This will rename the binary package to 'signify-mail', as suggested in > > > the first bug report above, and add a 'signify (<< 1.14-8~)' Replaces > > > header. > > > > > > Is anything more required here? > > [...] > > > > Yes, I think you should also rename the source package signify. > > I think that would be nice from a human namespace perspective but I > don't know if Debian have any documented process for doing that.
I am not aware of one. > Can > anyone find a pointer to relevant documentation? What is the process? > Upload 'signify' to NEW again as 'signify-mail', and then ask for > removal of the 'signify'? Can the source package name then be re-used > by 'signify-openbsd'? I believe that should work. You would also ask for removal of the 'signify-openbsd' source package at the end of the process. > Or is there a rename operation policy, asking for > 'signify' to be renamed to 'signify-mail', and 'signify-openbsd' renamed > to 'signify'? I'm fairly sure there's no support for this in Debian infrastructure (dak or debbugs). > Doing renames is confusing for a long-term perspective, > how is that piece of meta-information recorded and where? Is there any > earlier examples of a source package rename? [...] It's recorded in the changelog and, so far as I know, nowhere else. In 2012 the linux-2.6 source package was renamed to linux. It had to go through NEW, but that was needed for every ABI bump anyway. We had to track bugs against both source package names for several years (until EOL of the last release with linux-2.6). Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
