libxklavier and libgnomekbd transitions

[Luk Claes]

Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> libxklavier and libgnomekbd need a transition. I uploaded them to experimental a
> few days ago, and uploaded most of the rdeps too. I would like to upload them to
> unstable now to start the transition.
> 
> The build-rdeps of the packages are:
> 
> emilio at saturno:~$ build-rdeps libxklavier12-dev
> Reverse Build-depends in main:
> ------------------------------
> 
> gnome-settings-daemon
> xfkc
> xfce4-xkb-plugin
> xfce4-settings
> kdebase-workspace
> glunarclock
> control-center
> libgnomekbd
> gnome-applets
> 
> Found a total of 9 reverse build-depend(s) for libxklavier12-dev.
> 
> 
> emilio at saturno:~$ build-rdeps libgnomekbd-dev
> Reverse Build-depends in main:
> ------------------------------
> 
> gnome-settings-daemon
> gnome-screensaver
> control-center
> gnome-applets
> 
> Found a total of 4 reverse build-depend(s) for libgnomekbd-dev.
> 
> 
> As you can see, the libgnomekbd-dev transition only adds itself and
> gnome-screensaver to the list of packages, so it wouldn't be a big deal to
> transition them together.
> 
> I can upload all of them, except xfce4-xkb-plugin, xfce4-settings and xfkc
> (which will be done by Yves-Alexis), kdebase-workspace (only needs to change the
> build-dependency, the code has an #if #else to build with both APIs), and
> glunarclock (seems unnecessary, but in any case a rebuild should be enough).
> 
> Should I let libxklavier-dev provide libxklavier12-dev for those packages that
> will be fine with a binNMU? I'm not sure that's a good idea since the number of
> packages that would benefit is too few (3 or 4) and we want them to use
> libxklavier-dev for the next time the SONAME changes. We could remove the
> provides in the future though.
> 
> What do you think? Can I start these two transitions together? If so, when is OK
> to do so?

Yes, it's ok. Please do it now.

Cheers

Luk