Re: Spliting packages between pkg and pkg-data
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org> writes:
>
> > 3. Loose dependencies between -data and main packages *CAN* create breakage
> > on partial upgrades, depending on just how tight the relationship between
> > a particular version of the package and its arch-indep data is. Watch
> > out for this, it is NOT always an easy problem to solve because of bin
> > NMUs.
>
> One can provide 'foo-abi-1234' and depend on that. For packages that
> seldomely change the data format this works fine.
>
> For frequent/regular data format changes a Depends: foo-data (>=
> 1.2-3), foo-data (<< 1.2-3.1) or (<< 1.3) should do the job.
I like this one, it is less error-prone than trying to track ABIs when you
don't have to do so already for another reason (such as dynamic linking).
> > 4. Also IMHO one should at the very least suggest the main package from the
> > -data package. This helps the users of non-crappy apt frontends to
> > track the main package starting from the -data package. Relying on
> > package naming alone for this is suboptimal at best.
>
> Actualy I would love to have the naming policy set in stone and
> frontends filter for them. There is no reason to list foo-data in the
Please don't. I don't want my package management tools dumbed down. The
day I have to start second-guessing aptitude is the day I drop it.
If it is optional behaviour, then I wouldn't mind it, but I would still tack
a recommends or suggests in -data pointing back to the main package.
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
Henrique Holschuh
Reply to: