On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 02:23:53PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 08:29:29PM +0100, Artur R. Czechowski wrote: [...] > > 1. I left package with 1.3.1 version with names: t1lib1, t1lib-dev, > > t1lib-doc, t1lib1-bin. Version 5.0.0 is uploaded with names: libt1-5, > > libt1-dev, libt1-doc, t1lib-bin. > > 2. Dependant packages are modified and recompiled to use v5.0.0 > > 3. 1.3.1 is removed, we left with libt1-5, libt1-dev, libt1-doc and > > t1lib-bin, for users convenience empty t1lib-dev and t1lib-doc with > > dependencies only will be added. [...] > 2. Package t1lib 5.0.0 as source package t1lib, providing libt1-5, > libt1-dev, libt1-doc, and libt1-bin (or t1lib-bin -- Policy doesn't > suggest that you name this last item one way or the other). [...] > That's one way to go about this that should not require any > pseudopackages. Sorry, I oversold my proposal with that last statement. Under my proposal you wouldn't need a pseudopackage for t1lib1, but you would for: t1lib-dev (Depends: libt1-dev) t1lib-doc (Depends: libt1-doc) and, if you choose to rename it: t1lib-bin (Depends: libt1-bin) -- G. Branden Robinson | Yesterday upon the stair, Debian GNU/Linux | I met a man who wasn't there. branden@debian.org | He wasn't there again today, http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | I think he's from the CIA.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature