Path: csiph.com!aioe.org!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod From: Simon McVittie Newsgroups: linux.debian.bugs.dist,linux.debian.devel.mentors,linux.debian.maint.python Subject: Bug#886291: Debian package transition: Rename package and reuse old name with new content Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2018 12:30:02 +0200 Message-ID: References: X-Mailbox-Line: From debian-bugs-dist-request@lists.debian.org Sun Aug 19 10:21:15 2018 Old-Return-Path: X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.3 Reply-To: Simon McVittie , 886291@bugs.debian.org Resent-To: debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org Resent-Cc: Debian Python Modules Team X-Debian-Pr-Message: followup 886291 X-Debian-Pr-Package: src:pycryptodome X-Debian-Pr-Source: pycryptodome X-Spam-Bayes: score:0.0000 Tokens: new, 8; hammy, 150; neutral, 53; spammy, 0. spammytokens: hammytokens:0.000-+--sk:python3, 0.000-+--python3, 0.000-+--soname, 0.000-+--H*F:U*smcv, 0.000-+--H*r:smcv@debian.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-Debian-Message: from BTS X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1480029 List-ID: List-URL: Approved: robomod@news.nic.it Lines: 36 Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway Sender: robomod@news.nic.it X-Original-Cc: debian-mentors@lists.debian.org, debian-python@lists.debian.org X-Original-Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2018 11:18:51 +0100 X-Original-Message-ID: <20180819101851.GA3652@espresso.pseudorandom.co.uk> X-Original-References: <1380748b-3579-65c6-c157-5c06f2406861@gmail.com> <87104933-c4fa-f81d-d835-209a15e5290b@gmail.com> <1380748b-3579-65c6-c157-5c06f2406861@gmail.com> <87104933-c4fa-f81d-d835-209a15e5290b@gmail.com> Xref: csiph.com linux.debian.bugs.dist:913568 linux.debian.devel.mentors:41585 linux.debian.maint.python:10810 On Sat, 18 Aug 2018 at 16:31:37 +0200, Alexis Murzeau wrote: > To fix #886291, we should: > - Rename python3-pycryptodome to python3-pycryptodomex > - Reuse python3-pycryptodome package name to package a non compatible > python3 module. > > The rationale of this rename + reuse is that currently, > python3-pycryptodome contains, in fact, the pycryptodomex module. So > renaming that one + introduce the new package for the pycryptodome module. According to apt-file(1), python3-pycryptodome contains /usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/Cryptodome, which you use via "import Cryptodome". If you're renaming packages anyway, would it be better for the package containing /usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/Cryptodome to be the python3-cryptodome package? (My reasoning is that the name you import is the name of the "ABI", the same way the ABI of, for example, libdbus is represented by its SONAME libdbus-1.so.3, which we translate into libdbus-1-3 as a Debian package name.) > I already though of a solution on 886291@bugs.debian.org use multiple > dependencies with "|" but the package must still be buildable with the > first dependency (sbuild ignore dependencies after "|" for example) It's OK for packages in unstable to be uninstallable or unbuildable for a short time, as long as Depends/Breaks/Conflicts or RC bugs ensure that the brokenness doesn't propagate into testing. For instance, if you are going ahead with your renaming plan, you could give the new packages a versioned Breaks on python3-httpsig (<< H) and python3-pysnmp4 (<< S), where H is the first version of python3-httpsig that has been modified to use/expect the new (py)cryptodome(x) package layout, and S is the corresponding version of python3-pysnmp4. smcv