Hi Paul I think the testing went very well. As we suspected, most packages only required changing the build-depends on lesstif2-dev to libmotif-dev. There were a few that required the addition of libxt-dev and one or two that required libxext-dev and libxp-dev (although we should try to remove that dependency).
Cernlib depends on libpacklib-lesstif1-dev and libpawlib-lesstif3-dev from paw and pcb depends on its own pcb-lesstif, these packages should probably be renamed. Do -dev packages normally get transitional packages? I can't think of a situation where that would be useful. Ideally we need all of the packages that depend on lesstif2 to be rebuilt against libmotif. When a user upgrades they will then get libmotif which conflicts with lesstif2 and it will be removed. If a user was developing with lesstif2-dev it would be removed due to the conflict above, but they would not have been able to continue building against libmotif-dev without making changes anyway. Regards Graham On 7 May 2013 07:14, Paul Gevers <elb...@debian.org> wrote: > Hi Graham, > > On 06-05-13 23:01, Paul Gevers wrote: > > My proposal would be (with your approval) to just get motif into > > unstable/main and start converting the dependencies with the help of > > their maintainers (the libraries can coexist). Because the -dev package > > name has to change all build dependencies would have to get a > > source-full update. I would have liked to stage everything in > > experimental, but due to this (quoted from ftp-master) nasty dak bug, > > that would leave unstable (non-free) without (open-)motif. > > I was thinking, how well did it go with your building of all reverse > dependencies, and how well would it work if lesstif2-dev would be a > transitional package that depends on libmotif-dev? If that would work at > all, I think that is a good alternative to my proposal above. > > Paul > >
