Hi On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 at 03:11, M. Zhou <lu...@debian.org> wrote: > I personally dislike making the old package libtbb2-dev. > How about we make the old src:tbb package go through NEW again > with the following renames: > > libtbb-dev -> libtbb-legacy-dev, this sounds much better than libtbb2-dev > because it explains itself to be a to-be-deprecated version.
I personally don't like tbb-legacy-dev. It's not common in the archive for a -dev package. Most are unversioned, otherwise they match the library package, so libtbb2-dev for libtbb2. See e.g. lmsensors-dev, lmsensors4-dev, libpcre2-dev, libpcre3-dev, libvtk7-dev and libvtk9-dev, etc. Explanations can go in the package description, e.g. from libpcre3-dev "New packages should use the newer pcre2 packages, and existing packages should migrate to pcre2". > In this way we can finish the transition very quickly and leave > longer time for broken packages to migrate to onetbb. > > For me, submitting patches is as well much easier as I only have to > change libtbb-dev -> libtbb-legacy-dev for broken packages. Changing libtbb-dev -> libtbb2-dev should be even easier :). However, we don't **have** to reintroduce the old tbb package, and **you** don't have to be the one maintaining it. If all the packages that FTBFS with the new tbb can be removed from testing, the old tbb can be reintroduced after the transition, by some maintainers who wish to care for it. Regards Graham
