On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 07:15:36PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote: > Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > On Mon, 13 Jul 2009, Mike Hommey wrote: > >> I am now wondering what to do. Doing the change, introducing a > >> transitional package, shouldn't be disruptive. On the other hand, > >> leaving the package as it is is doing no harm besides the policy > >> violation that has been in place for almost a decade. > >> > >> What do you think? > > > > I agree with Junichi's last comment. Keep the package name as is and > > update it only next time that the SONAME changes. > > > > Many package do not respect this point of the policy. It should be a > > conventional name to use when you have to rename the package for a SONAME > > change but it should not introduce a useless transition just for > > aesthetics. > > Please don't change package names unless really needed or really > confusing especially with libraries, TIA.
I'll just close the bug then. It's useless to keep it wontfix. (and the SONAME is not going to change any time soon) Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
