Soren Stoutner <so...@debian.org> writes: > On Thursday, May 15, 2025 1:07:32 PM Mountain Standard Time Nicholas D > Steeves > wrote: >> Soren Stoutner <so...@debian.org> writes: >> > Manuel and I would like to split this into two source packages, based on >> > these two upstream source repositories: >> > >> > https://github.com/OpenTaal/opentaal-hunspell >> > >> > https://github.com/OpenTaal/opentaal-wordlist >> > >> > The current dutch package has an epoch for reasons that happened before we >> > were involved with the package: 1:2.20.19+1-1. >> >> This doesn't look right, because >> >> $ rmadison hunspell-nl -s unstable >> hunspell-nl | 2:2.20.19+1-1 | unstable | all >> >> Ie: Wrong epoch, which I hope is just a typo. I also don't think >> ftpmasters will agree that a NEW package should have an epoch... I'm >> CCing -devel, because introducing epochs must be discussed there, and I >> count a NEW package as introducing an epoch. > > The changelog indeed says the current epoch is 1: > > https://salsa.debian.org/debian/dutch/-/blob/master/debian/changelog? > ref_type=heads#L1 > > Also, tracker.debian.org says the same thing: > > https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/dutch > > It is interesting that rmadison says differently. Is this some automatic > adjustment in dak? If so, I would imagine that it would make sense to adjust > the epoch to 2 in package changelog.
"adjusting" the epoch also requires discussion, and consensus, on -devel >> > If we create a new source package named hunspell-nl, it would also >> > need to have the same epoch. >> >> Why not take the opportunity to remove the epoch? The upstream names >> are opentaal-hunspell and opentaal-wordlist, so why not: >> >> 1. Create src:opentaal-hunspell and src:opentaal-wordlist >> 2. Use bin:opentaal-hunspell[-nl] and bin:opentaal-wordlist[-nl] >> 3. Create a dutch metapackage in one of these two NEW src:opentaal.* >> packages 4. Use versioned Provides, with epoch, in the dutch metapackage. > > I would love to, but the binary package names are not negotiable because they > are set by Debian’s dictionary policy. For example, the hunspell-nl binary > package needs to retain this name to match the other hunspell dictionaries. > Similarly for aspell-nl, wdutch, and idutch. Understood, and my binary package names are just a suggestion. We have an obligation to avoid epochs whenever possible, and the way that we do this is by deductively eliminating alternatives such as Breaks, Replaces, and Provides. Maybe I missed part of this thread? If so, where can I read that this was demonstrated? Thanks Nicholas
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
