On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 19:55:45 -0300 Antonio Terceiro <terce...@debian.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 08:25:30PM +0200, Norwid Behrnd wrote: > > Dear Antonio, > > > > Initially, package `ruby-gem` was assembled by `gem2deb` which is why I > > assume > > it were acceptable to retain a name reflecting the language of > > implementation > > in the name of the repository. Meanwhile, the RFS on mentors provides a > > .deb > > which yields a package by name of `mdl` only. The syntax engaged relies on > > the > > example of Debian's Policy Manual (section 7.6.2) to remove (if existing) > > earlier versions of the package on the fly with the elder name by a pattern > > of > > > > ``` > > Provides: new_name > > Conflicts: old_name > > Replaces: old_name > > ``` > > > > in file /debian/control. > > > > As far as currently understood, this lifts the need need to rename many > > files/the repository, or to submit the package for review as an entirely new > > one your suggestion would require. > > > > Do you think the package qualifies now as fit for upload? > > Any new package, source or binary, requires a pass through NEW. i.e. if > you keep the source package name (ruby-mdl), but add a new binary > package (mdl), it has to go through NEW anyway. > > IMO it's better to save everyone's time and do that a single time; this > is why I'm suggesting to just uploading a single new source package that > provides both the new binary and the transitional package to supersede > the old binary package. Now that I see the point I agree with you. The syntax checker was split a into transition / dummy package of old name `ruby-mdl` https://mentors.debian.net/package/ruby-mdl/ https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/r/ruby-mdl/ruby-mdl_0.12.0-4.dsc to relay to a new and separate `mdl` https://mentors.debian.net/package/mdl/ https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/mdl/mdl_0.13.0-1.dsc -- only the later to contain the additional/new functionality.
