[Pkg-corba-devel] omniorb4 package name change

[Floris Bruynooghe]

Hello

On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 05:27:37PM +0200, Thomas Girard wrote:
> On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 09:14:14PM +0100, Floris Bruynooghe wrote:
>  * new packages have to conflict *and* replace existing ones; see [1].
>    So for instance omniidl should read:
>      Package: omniidl
>      Architecture: any
>      ...
>      Conflicts: omniidl4 (<< 4.1.2-2)
>      Replaces: omniidl4 (<< 4.1.2-2)

Thanks for spotting this, corrected in svn.

>  * init.d scripts have to handle this transition for omniorb-nameserver;
>    i.e. handle the /var/lib/omniorb4 -> /var/lib/omniorb and the
>    /var/log/omniorb4-nameserver.log -> /var/log/omniorb-nameserver.log
>    move.

Oops, overlooked that.  Last time we moved the DB in the preinst (and
postrm for rollback) script which seems a good place to do this I
think.  Now there are three options:

* Do this in the preinst of omniorb-nameserver.  This would mean we
  have no idea which version of omniorb4-nameserver (if any) was
  installed before (etch or testing) and the best we can do is check
  that DB file in both locations and move the files when they're
  there.  The problem is for the rollback (abort-install to postrm) as
  we don't know where to rolback too.

* Do this in the preinst of the transitional package of
  omniorb4-nameserver.  We would know the previous version installed
  and can do a slightly more secure moving of the DB (i.e. support
  rollback properly).  The downside is that a removal of
  omniorb4-nameserver followed by an install of omniorb-nameserver
  would not move the database.

* Do this in the postinst of omniorb-nameserver.  Same as the first
  option, just check where the DB could be, if any, and move it
  unconditionally.  The rollback problem here doesn't exist anymore as
  there's none to support.  Only issue left here is that we're not
  really sure we moved an omniNames DB file since we're not sure we
  had it installed and thus anyone could have created a file there
  with that name without anyone complaining.

Any opinion on which of these is the best choice?  Or is there yet
another way that is better that I have overlooked?


>  * we can't rename the source package from omniorb4 to omniorb yet.

Ok, fair enough.  I suppose there's no reason to rename the source
package really, we can easily leave this for now.

>    We need to wait for another upstream release to do so, because the
>    source package name is related to the .orig.tar.gz name and we don't
>    need to upload another .orig.tar.gz until there's a new upstream
>    release.

Just for arguing's sake.  Surely we could just upload the same
.orig.tar.gz under the new name, dak wouldn't care would it?


Regards
Floris

-- 
Debian GNU/Linux -- The Power of Freedom
www.debian.org | www.gnu.org | www.kernel.org