On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 12:01 +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote: > On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 04:53:50PM -0700, Al Stone wrote: > > If it were my package, I'd make the judgement call to still call the source > package acovea, name the source tarball acovea_5.1.1.orig.tar.gz, and build > the extra binary packages.
Fair enough. I'd considered that option, too. > > -- And the 'acovea' binary package now being created should Conflict/ > > Replace with older versions, correct? This also seems to make > > sense. > > I can't think of any reason why you'd need to C/R acovea against itself -- > you can't have two versions of the same package installed in any case. > You'd probably need to C/R libacovea 5.1.1 against acovea 4.0.0, if the old > acovea binary package included the shared library (or other files which > libacovea now provides). There would be no conflicting binary files; I just reckoned the source file changes might confuse things. > > -- But, how do I properly inform the ftp masters that the old > > 'acovea' source has been replaced by the new 'libacovea' source, > > even though both produce a binary package called 'acovea' (and > > should do so)? ITP the new stuff and file the bug to remove the > > old? > > Upload. They're clever people, they'll sort it out. If in doubt, make the > changelog nice and verbose. > > - Matt Indeed :). Generally the wisest approach. Thanks. -- Ciao, al ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Al Stone Alter Ego: Open Source and Linux R&D Debian Developer Hewlett-Packard Company http://www.debian.org E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
