[Pkg-bluetooth-maintainers] (no subject)

[Filippo Giunchedi]

debian-release at lists.debian.org
Bcc: 
Subject: libbluetooth transition (was: Re: [Pkg-bt] Unnecessary renaming of development package)
Reply-To: 
In-Reply-To: <20060705223448.GB16885 at esaurito.net>
X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 2.4.26-bytemark-uml-20040706-1
X-Editor: VIM - Vi IMproved 6.3
Organization: NoName Inc.

I'm bringing this to d-release to have more comments on what is best to do.
Please keep CCs, original thread at
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-bluetooth-maintainers/2006-July/000361.html

On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 12:34:48AM +0200, Filippo Giunchedi wrote:
> > > allright, this looks like a quite straight transition to me, anyway I've yet to
> > > see any reaction from maintainers except from gnokii/gammu ones.
> > 
> > Filing bugs might help...
> 
> this is undergoing, affected packages are:
> 
> Phil Blundell <pb at debian.org> (bluez-pin) [no more needed]
> Hendrik Sattler <debian at hendrik-sattler.de> (obexftp openobex-apps)
> Uwe Hermann <uwe at debian.org> (btscanner)
> Michael Meskes <meskes at debian.org> (kdebluetooth kdebluetooth-irmcsync qobex)
> Michael Banck <mbanck at debian.org> (libmultisync-plugin-irmc-bluetooth)
> Matthew Johnson <debian at matthew.ath.cx> (bluemon)
> Simon Richter <sjr at debian.org> (ussp-push)

I have filed these bugs:
#376974 btscanner
#376972 bluemon
#376971 obexftp
#376970 libmultisync-plugin-irmc-bluetooth
#376966 ussp-push
#376975 kdebluetooth

> 
> > > Anyway, is this procedure documented somewhere? It doesn't seem like a good idea
> > > to have libbluetoothX-dev when soname of the included library is in fact Y, but
> > > perhaps I'm missing something.
> > 
> > Normally you shouldn't use libfooX-dev, you should use libfoo-dev
> > instead unless you have a good reason to use libfooX-dev. If one does
> > use libfooX-dev, one should at least have a time where libfooX-dev and
> > libfooY-dev are co-installable (both packages in unstable at the same
> > time), again unless you have a good reason not to do that.
> 
> I'm not sure if there was a good reason when the package was first created. If
> that eases things for release team we can just rename it to libbluetooth-dev
> while we are at it.

so, might it be a good idea to rename libbluetooth2-dev to libbluetooth-dev if
that eases future transitions?

also, I'm wondering if a wiki page like TransitionBestPratices might be of any
help.

thanks,
filippo