[Debian GNUstep maintainers] Re: gratuitous -dev package renaming

[Hubert Chan]

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 00:56:22 -0800, Steve Langasek <vorlon at debian.org> said:

> Are there really differences in the new version that warrant forcing
> sourceful changes in all of the reverse-dependencies?  If not, I'm
> inclined to NMU gnustep-base and gnustep-gui to Provide: the old names
> of these -dev packages and schedule binNMUs for the affected packages,
> so that this gnustep transition doesn't continue to drag on.

Err.  Sorry, I should have caught this at first.  For most (for some
value of "most") packages, a binNMU is not enough.  Due to the changed
file locations, most packages would need their debian/rules modified to
add "gsdh_gnustep" in the binary-* targets.  Otherwise, they may not be
installable (if they have any files in the relocated directories).

AFAICT, though, most applications should be alright (though they should
probably add gsdh_gnustep anyways, in case they later include files in
the relocated directories).

-- 
Hubert Chan <hubert at uhoreg.ca> - http://www.uhoreg.ca/
PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA
Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7  5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA
Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net.   Encrypted e-mail preferred.