[Pkg-urxvt-maintainers] Bug#848284: ping: please take over rxvt and migrate rxvt-unicode to 256

[Adam Borowski]

On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 11:47:05AM -0500, Ryan Kavanagh wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 06:06:23PM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > As I filed this just before Stretch's freeze, and you didn't act immediately,
> > the freeze precluded us from killing old rxvt.  It'd be nice if you could do
> > so for Buster.
> 
> Thanks for reminding me of this. I have a backlog of changes to urxvt I want to
> upload in the next few days, so I'll make this change with those.

Awesome!

> > I think, though, that instead of migrating to rxvt-unicode-256color, it might
> > be better to take over rxvt, make it the primary package, and make all other
> > variants be dummy transitionals for it.
> 
> To confirm, you suggest making "rxvt" the primary binary package, and making the
> following dummy transitionals for it:
>  * aterm
>  * rxvt-unicode
>  * rxvt-unicode-256color
> 
> I also propose making rxvt-unicode-lite a transition package. I don't know that
> saving 200kb in an executable is worth the overhead given today's hardware:
> rak at zeta:/tmp$ for f in lite 256color; \
>     do dpkg -c rxvt-unicode-${f}_9.22-1+b3_amd64.deb | grep 'bin/urxvt$'; done
> -rwxr-sr-x root/utmp   1136448 2017-07-22 02:35 ./usr/bin/urxvt
> -rwxr-sr-x root/utmp   1398784 2017-07-22 02:35 ./usr/bin/urxvt

Heh, now much point keeping it, indeed.

> I've never had to do a multi-package transition, but I assume I'll need to
> coordinate with debian-release following the same procedure as for library
> transitions?

The only interface goes through exec(), thus it's enough to provide symlinks
from the old executable names, no transition needed.


Meow!
-- 
// If you believe in so-called "intellectual property", please immediately
// cease using counterfeit alphabets.  Instead, contact the nearest temple
// of Amon, whose priests will provide you with scribal services for all
// your writing needs, for Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory prices.