[Amavisd-new-debian-devel] [adam at adam-barratt.org.uk: Re: transitional package question]

[Harald Jenny]

Hi all,

it seems like debian-release does not think it's a good idea to provide a
transition package from amavisd-new-milter to amavisd-milter, does anybody have
some good arguments or should I drop the idea? Btw, currently amavisd-milter
only breaks amavisd-new-milter, should I modify this to includes Provides: and
Replaces: too?

Kind regards
Harald

----- Forwarded message from "Adam D. Barratt" <adam at adam-barratt.org.uk> -----

Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 06:55:04 +0100
From: "Adam D. Barratt" <adam at adam-barratt.org.uk>
To: Harald Jenny <harald at a-little-linux-box.at>
Cc: debian-release at lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: transitional package question
X-Local-Spam-Level: X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3
X-Local-Virus-Scan: OK

[Sorry for not getting back to you sooner, and thanks for reminding me]

On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 10:14 +0200, Harald Jenny wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 08:33:27PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
[ Adding an amavisd-new-milter transitional package to amavisd-milter ]
> > Are the interfaces / configuration of /usr/sbin/amavis{,d}-milter
> > compatible?  i.e. can a user of amavisd-new-milter simply install
> > amavisd-milter and have (more or less) everything continue to work?
> 
> Not really, the mailer-daemon as well as amavisd-new need some config changes
> (which I planned to document in a NEWS file of the transitional package).

My concern here is that people upgrade from lenny to squeeze, pulling in
the new transitional package, and discover their mail has stopped
working (or that viruses and spam are no longer being blocked).

> > If so, then an update which simply added a transitional package
> > depending on amavisd-milter would be ok. 
> 
> Well the update would include bumping the standards version to 3.9.1 and
> changing
> Conflicts: amavisd-new-milter
> to
> Provides: amavisd-new-milter
> Breaks: amavisd-new-milter (<< 1:2.7.0)
> Replaces: amavisd-new-milter (<< 1:2.7.0)
>
> (version number is higher than in unstable in case amavisd-new gets an update -
> or should I include the highest available number?)

<< first-version-provided by amavisd-milter?

> > You'd have to take care to
> > ensure that the binary package had an appropriate version - the version
> > of amavisd-new-milter in stable is 1:2.6.1.dfsg-1, so it would need to
> > be higher than that.
> 
> The current version number is 1.5.0-2 so I guess an appropriate one would be
> 2:1.5.0-2?

The filenames for packages in the archive don't include the epoch; in
order to ensure the filenames don't clash it would need to be 2:1.5.0-3
or similar.

Regards,

Adam

----- End forwarded message -----