Re: XPM

[Josip Rodin <joy@cibalia.gkvk.hr>]

On Thu, Mar 04, 1999 at 06:01:51PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > This is the new naming scheme, that would standardize the package
> > names:
> > 
> >    xpm4g -> libxpm4                      the .so.* library
> >    xpm4g-dev -> libxpm-dev               the .a and .so + sxpm
> >    xpm4.7 -> libxpm4-alt                 the libc5 version
> >    xpm4-altdev -> libxpm4-altdev         the libc5 devel. version
> 
> Since the packaging system does not support package renamings yet,

ITYM does not support it *properly*, since you can replace stuff that
doesn't have anything depending on it without forcing. Or?

> I would discourage any package renamings until they are effectively
> supported.
> 
> My suggestion: Please don't do it.

Hm, in the meantime I found out that there is a new upstream version.

Wouldn't it be less harmful if I made this new version with names
changed - because xpm4g 3.4j-0.8 and libxpm4 3.4k-1 don't share any files
(I think so, but I'll check). Everything that just needs libXpm.so.4.10
works, and everything that just needs libXpm.so.4.11 works.

Files that are shared - libXpm.a, libxpm.so (a symlink), and xpm.h -
are in the -dev packages, and these can conflict/replace safely,
since the versioned provides don't matter in that case.

Of course, if I do this, I'll file wishlist bug reports and offer
myself for NMUs to recompile packages against libxpm4.

BTW Adding that versioned provides feature in dpkg must be really hard.
I've seen a lot of people complaining about it, but nothing was done.

-- 
enJoy -*/\*- http://jagor.srce.hr/~jrodin/