Comment 9 for bug 1593024

On 19.06.2016 [18:42:32 -0000], Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> If you can convince Debian to take your changes, Ubuntu can be in sync.

Good point. I'll try a submittodebian and see what they say.

> The Debian bug 688033 you mentioned says that are already separate
> packages for the core parts of ZF 2, so the watch file is correct.

Yes, sorry, I think the debian/watch file is correct. I think the Ubuntu
watch file is not, as it doesn't distinguish between ZF 1 and ZF 2. Just
another example of lack of maintenance of the Ubuntu package, afaict (as
`uscan` will incorrectly try to update all the way to ZF 2).

> I'm guessing on a few things now:
> * Since zend-framework's only reverse dependency in Ubuntu is
> php-icinga (which is also being updated), maybe the changing
> directories are unimportant.

Agreed. The question becomes if anyone has installed just zend-framework
on its own (or any of the related binary packages) -- would the
resulting upgrade break any tools/code they might have written that
relies on the zend-framework layout?

I agree that from an Ubuntu packages perspective, we can be consistent
if we also update php-icinga.

> * Maybe we should B/R the zendx package too since there's no good
> reason to have that installed going forward (unless someone else
> provides a higher versioned compatible packages).

Yep, this was my (less than well-stated question). I think we want to
Breaks: zendx, because the newer zendframework is incompatible with the
zendx pacakge; but do want to Replaces: it? Because semantically, it
does not replace it, as there is no zendx code in zendframework's
packages. We could probably ask Debian to package the extras library, if
that is necessary to complete the transition, or package it ourselves as
a distinct library in the meanwhile, which would have the Breaks: and
Replaces: correctly.

I don't see any Debian RFP for the zendx extras, and I wonder if
possibly the extras don't follow DFSG. I'll ask in my Debian bug.