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

Benjamin Seidenberg astronut at dlgeek.net
Thu Dec 1 01:27:24 UTC 2005


Sven Mueller wrote:

>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?
>
>  
>
I don't have a preference for base/common. I do think that changing the 
scheme might be confusing for people who are used to the old one, as you 
said above. I think that if we can get a 2.1 -> 2.2 automatic upgrade, 
we should consider dropping the versioned name and just have 
cyrus-base/common, cyrus-imapd, cyrus-pop3d, etc.

Benjamin


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 256 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-cyrus-imapd-debian-devel/attachments/20051130/e01c3fdb/signature.pgp


More information about the Pkg-Cyrus-imapd-Debian-devel mailing list