Re: Doubt about using a forked version for a new package release (original) (raw)
- To: "Nelson A. de Oliveira" <naoliv@gmail.com>, Debian Mentors <debian-mentors@lists.debian.org>
- Subject: Re: Doubt about using a forked version for a new package release
- From: Gianfranco Costamagna <locutusofborg@debian.org>
- Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 08🔞32 +0000 (UTC)
- Message-id: <[🔎] 339125651.468502.1506673112350@mail.yahoo.com>
- Reply-to: Gianfranco Costamagna <locutusofborg@debian.org>
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] CAARFvTU1xWGO+-S9f=OJsj5POm8KKEAQCok8yeU4WUoppXm33A@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <[🔎] CAARFvTU1xWGO+-S9f=OJsj5POm8KKEAQCok8yeU4WUoppXm33A@mail.gmail.com>
Hello Nelson,
Debian has pngnq at version 1.0 with the latest upstream version at 1.1 The fork https://sf.net/projects/pngnqs9 is at version 2.0.2
The best option seems, indeed, to offer the forked version (as https://bugs.debian.org/862077 also says)
usually a good starting point is to see what other distro did (e.g. Fedora, Suse, Arch), and discuss with old/new upstream.
Having a new package providing pngnq and conflicting / replacing it is feasible https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-binary.html#virtual-packages
you can use update-alternative to let users choice their preferred implementation.
Honestly I would start by updating pngnq to the latest version + patches, and then maybe pack the new one in experimental and ask for testing or whatever (you can also pack it as patch on top of the non-fork version)
At the end, it should be up to you and your users (also debian-devel is probably a good place to ask "which version is better")
G.
Reply to:
- References:
- Doubt about using a forked version for a new package release
* From: "Nelson A. de Oliveira" naoliv@gmail.com
- Doubt about using a forked version for a new package release
- Prev by Date:Bug#877047: RFS: sane-backends-extras/1.0.22.5 [QA]
- Next by Date:Bug#864713: Bug #864713: cod-tools package is ready
- Previous by thread:Doubt about using a forked version for a new package release
- Next by thread:Bug#867727: marked as done (RFS: parlatype/1.5.2-1 [ITP])
- Index(es):