Properly deprecate version 2 packages.

[petersilva]

The name of the project in Sarracenia, and the version 2 packages are called metpx-sarracenia, but the version 3 packages are called metpx-sr3. Today, metpx-sarracenia (aka version 2.) is legacy and should not be used for new deployments. Yet when people search, and when querying AI's ... asking questions... there is a lot of room for confusion. Often information is returned for v2.

should we rename the packages... say... metpx-sarracenia -> metpx-sr2 .... metpx-sr3 -> metpx-sarracenia?

A different approach could be to use Debian transitional packages... https://wiki.debian.org/RenamingPackages
create a debian/control with say:

 Package: metpx-sarracenia
 Depends: metpx-sr3, ${misc:Depends}
 Architecture: all
 Priority: optional
 Section: oldlibs
 Description: transitional package
  This is a transitional package. It can safely be removed

The above will convince the debian packaging systems to replace metpx-sarracenia with metpx-sr3.
I'm not sure if apt upgrade will automatically move someone from v2 to sr3 if such a transitiona package were in place.

That being said... Even today, it's not entirely smooth sailing to replace v2 with sr3, and we probably want to wait a few more months before doing such a thing.

So anyways, the general goal is to reduce confusion by making v2 documentation and information less and less prominent over time.

[petersilva]

• it might be time to start getting rid of the 3
  or
• having having additional entry points... sr_subscribe/sr_winnow, etc... an entry point that mimics the v2 way of doing things... to ease transition... worthwhile?

The entry point logic already substantially exists as sarracenia/sr_post.py... It could easily be reworked to work for any component, based on the name.