[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Policy regarding Motif apps?

Rob Leslie writes:
> Another idea I had: don't change the package name, but merely distribute two
> .deb files (app-smotif.deb and app-dmotif.deb) both containing the same
> albeit variantly linked package, "app". This would simplify dpkg handling
> somewhat by not forcing you to explicitly remove one to install the other. It
> would also make it easier to identify the package for removal, since you
> needn't know which variant was installed. If in doubt, `ldd' can always be
> used to determine how a program was linked.
> I think I would prefer this, unless it will confuse something else I'm not
> considering.

I know it will confuse and break the `Packages' file maker script, which
uses two files having the same package name as an error condition, which 
I think it is...

I wonder, can you use dpkg -r on a virtual package name?  I'll have to
construct a test case if Ian J doesn't reply first...

Carl Streeter                   |  "Etiquette-wise, there is no proper time 
streeter@cae.wisc.edu           |    to use the phrase 'It sucks.'" --Dogbert
Just another Perl hacker        |  "I'm a heartless bastard." --Linus Torvalds
Ask me about Debian/GNU Linux.  |    http://www.cae.wisc.edu/~streeter/

Reply to: