<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 5:12 AM, Michael Schwendt <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mschwendt@gmail.com" target="_blank">mschwendt@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 22:22:32 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> For a package changing name, a package re-review is needed. So this needs<br>
> to have a maintainer(s) who have the time to go through the package rename<br>
> process to fix it up.<br>
<br>
</div>Subpackages may be renamed without a re-review. There are enough packages<br>
that _end_ with -python, e.g. xmms2-python is a Python module.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>If I wanted to fix up some old packages that use the packagename-python convention, would the best way to go about this be to Provide the old module name when switching to the new name? If a package foo-python is a subpackage of foo, and I wanted to change it to python-foo, I should:<br>
<br></div><div>%package -n python-foo<br></div><div>Provides: foo-python <br><br></div><div>Or would it be better to obsolete the foo-python package? I think the first is better since it allows the old package to be updated to the new package name, and after a couple releases the line providing the old package name could be removed.<br>
<br></div><div>Rich<br></div></div></div></div>