[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Renaming ruby-factory-girl to ruby-factory-bot



On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 11:36:14AM +0100, Georg Faerber wrote:
> On 18-03-13 16:30:16, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 04, 2018 at 10:04:46PM +0100, Georg Faerber wrote:
> > > On 18-03-03 16:30:36, Cédric Boutillier wrote:
> > > > ruby-factory-girl-rails fails to build because of dependency checking
> > > > looking for a factory_girl gemspec file instead of a factory_bot.
> > > > 
> > > > I don't know if it is better to fix factory-girl-rails gemspecs, or to
> > > > ship also the factor_girl.gemspec file too with ruby-factory-bot.
> > > 
> > > Hm, I'm not really sure how to deal with this, as I already (tried?) to
> > > describe in one of my initial mails: Not only to name changed, but also
> > > code within, and no "compat helper / level" was introduced. This means,
> > > that code which depends on factory_girl needs to change as well.
> > > Upstream described the necessary steps regarding this [1].
> > > 
> > > Given these circumstances, I'm not really sure if using 'Replaces' in
> > > d/control and providing a transitional package is the right way to go.
> > > 
> > > What about introducing ruby-factory-bot as a new package without
> > > 'Breaks', 'Replaces' and a transitional package, and removing
> > > ruby-factory-girl once all upstreams of the reverse dependencies have
> > > changed to ruby-factory-bot?
> > 
> > If the new package is not backwards compatible, it should not have
> > breaks/replaces or anything like that. you need to make the old package
> > deprecated, report bugs against reverse dependencies, and wait for them
> > to switch to the new library.
> 
> Alright -- so I'll create an ITP and package ruby-factory-bot
> accordingly? After this, both ruby-factory-{bot,girl} will exist in the
> archive then, but I guess this is okay?

I don't think there is a way around that, since the new package is not a
drop-in replacement for the old ...

> Reverse dependencies are then able to change their dependency anytime
> they wish.

yes, but ideally we want to push that, hence my suggestion of reporting
bugs etc. depending on your motivation levels you may want to make this
transition a personal quest. ;-)

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: