[Pkg-Cyrus-imapd-Debian-devel] RFC: Renaming the packages

[Sven Mueller]

Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote on 30/11/2005 22:03:
>>Well, I have no strong feelings regarding the rename of the 2.2
>>packages. However I would not like to rename the 2.1 packages, since
>>that would (as Benjamin pointed out) make upgrades from sarge to etch
>>more difficult (either by requiring manual intervention or by using
>>transitional packages).
> 
> Manual intervention is a no-no.  Unless etch takes so long to ship that we
> end up removing 2.1, transitional packages would have to be used.  And I
> really have nothing against using transitional packages, they are safe and
> they work.  And *nobody* will convince me I am inflating the archive given
> the ammount of substandard crap people have been uploading later :-)

Come to think of it, given the similarity between 2.1 and 2.2, we could
even try and do automatic upgrades from 2.1 to 2.2. At least in my two
test cases, 2.2 worked quite fine with the data and configuration I had
for 2.1 (except for the needed BDB update procedure). So if we could
provide such an automatic upgrade path from 2.1, I would be all for
removing 2.1 from etch and automatically upgrading it's users to 2.2.

This would require some pretty extensive testing and quite a bit of work
on the upgrade scripts though.

>>>The rationale for a possible renaming of the packages is that "cyrus##-*" is
>>>really awkward, and does NOT reflect the upstream name of the application at
>>>all.
>>
>>The good thing however was that this kept the cyrus-imapd related
>>packages together in the package list. After the rename, the cyrus-sasl
>>packages will get mixed in. This is no big problem though.
> 
> That was the reason I used cyrus21- and cyrus22- (even if I never uploaded
> any of the five or six attempts at cyrus22- :P).
> 
> However, nowadays we have package tags and far more intelligent frontends,
> so I feel better searchability is now much more important.

Well, people are used to the cyrus21 name so much nowadays that they
would probably search for cyrus22/cyrus23 anyway, not for cyrus-imapd.
And with the later, they probably would only find the imap server
itself. But if they won't find cyrus22-*, they would probably resort to
searching for cyrus-* anyway.

> And cyrus-sasl getting in the middle is not that bad, it WAS created because
> of cyrus-imapd anyway :-)  and cyrus-imapd will always depend on it very
> heavily...

Which reminds me that the cyrus-sasl package in Debian is horribly
unmaintained....

>>>What do you guys think about the whole idea? and what about the cyrus-common
>>>to cyrus-base rename?
>>
>>Why rename -common to -base? Most other packages I know of also use the
>>-common approach AFAIR.
> 
> -common sounds to me like something related to alternative packages, while
> -base seems to more correctly describe the function of the package.

Given this explanation, I think you are right. Hmm,... Benjamin: What do
you think about this particular renaming part? Other opinions?

cu,
sven
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-cyrus-imapd-debian-devel/attachments/20051201/5762ef66/signature.pgp