On October 15, 2024 12:20:27 PM UTC, Guillem Jover <guil...@debian.org> wrote:
>Hi!
>
>On Tue, 2024-10-08 at 09:01:06 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> 1) Take current non-OpenBSD 'signify' source package and upload NEW
>> 'signify-mail' with d/control modified as:
>>
>> Source: signify-mail
>> ...
>> Package: signify-mail
>> Replaces: signify (<= 1.14-7)
>>
>> Do we need 'Breaks: signify (<= 1.14-7)' too? Conflicts?
>>
>> I've re-read chapter 7 of the policy manual again, but I have read it so
>> many times before and still don't feel confident about what it actually
>> means. https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html
>>
>> 2) Once 'signify-mail' has entered testing, open a ftp.debian.org RM bug
>> for 'signify' to get the binary packages removed from testing.
>>
>> 3) Open a wishlist bug for 'signify-openbsd' with a patch to provide a
>> 'Package: signify' that has /usr/bin/signify and to add:
>>
>> Conflicts: signify (<= 1.14-7), signify-mail
>>
>> Is a similar Breaks needed too?
>>
>> The 'signify-openbsd' binary package should be left around as a empty
>> dummy package for transitions to the new 'signify' binary package.
>>
>> 4) Uploading source package 'signify-openbsd' to NEW as 'signify', and
>> then ask for removal of the old 'signify-openbsd' source package. This
>> is nice but optional. It was suggested this can trigger BTS bugs. It
>> may be best to wait until at least trixie+1. This doesn't affect users
>> so is more of an developer aesthetic concern, which may suggest it isn't
>> worth doing at all.
>
>Not digging into the packaging side of things, but I think you can
>probably optimize/reduce NEW trips and archive admins intervention, by
>taking into account that (AFAIR and if things have not changed?) source
>package renames do not go through NEW. That you can take over (also
>AFAIR if things have not changed) a binary package from another source
>package. And that binaries no longer produced by any source get
>automatically garbage collected (https://wiki.debian.org/Glossary#nbs).
>
>So depending on the timelines, the process could be reduced by staging
>the binary package moves/take-overs and source package renames in
>different ordered uploads.
They do go through New.
Scott K
