[Pkg-openldap-devel] Source package name

[Russ Allbery]

Steve Langasek <vorlon at debian.org> writes:

> I've always disliked the idea that the source package name has to change
> for every new upstream version; it screws with our ability to track bugs
> sourcefully in the BTS, it makes it harder to track changes in VCSes,
> and it causes confusion in the Debian archive (testing propagation,
> unbuildable source packages that are an action item for manual cleanup,
> etc).

Amen to that.  It also makes it much harder for the average user to find
the source package if they know enough to be looking for the QA pages, for
example, but not enough to poke around with apt-cache search.  (I was that
person not too long ago.)

openldap is a nice, intuitive thing to look for.  :)

> So I've not bothered with changing the source package name yet, even
> though the name is obviously misleading with the current version number.
> I figured once we had a version of 2.4 that had reached testing we could
> rename the source to openldap2 - not sooner, because taking back the
> openldap2 package name means libldap2 suddenly becomes a "Not Built from
> Source" binary.  If we name it "openldap" instead we could make that
> change immediately, with the tradeoff that we lose all bug history from
> *both* the openldap2 and openldap2.3 source packages...

Won't a new openldap package automatically pick up all of the bugs that
are assigned to the binary packages, so that it would only be the source
bugs we'd have to reassign?  Or are you worried about more than just
reassigning the open bugs?

>> On a related note, should I fix the Vcs header in debian/control to point
>> to just trunk and not trunk-2.3?
>
> Yes please :)

Done.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra at debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>