Ben Hutchings <b...@decadent.org.uk> writes: > 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).
I agree in principle, but I wonder if going through the effort of introducing a new source package 'signify-mail' and removing the current 'signify' will give us anything beyond doing the QA package upload to rename the binary package. The only advantage I can identify seems to be if the 'signify-openbsd' source package would then be able to be renamed to 'signify'. But is that possible? Are there any earlier examples of re-use of the same source package name, but for a different package? The linux-2.6 vs linux analogy is not identical, it is the same source package and there were no source package namespace re-use happening. This all assumes Tomasz as maintainer is interested in renaming his 'signify-openbsd' to 'signify'. /Simon
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
