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

Summary of Package Overlaps

One of the release requirements for 2.0 is that the --force-overwrite
flag for dpkg can be turned off by default.  This means that there
should be no problematic overlaps between packages in the main
distribution.  To help achieve that, I have decided to post a
summary of package overlaps every week.

I generate the raw material for this list with an awk script that
parses the Contents and Packages files.  The script ignores
directories, and ignores overlaps between packages that conflict with
each other.  The awk script was posted to debian-devel once, and
can also be found as part of bug report #12308.

This version of the summary is based on
         hamm/Contents from 1997-09-08/18:27 (GMT)
         hamm/Packages from 1997-09-07/18:22 (GMT)
         hamm/non-free/Packages from 1997-09-05/13:13 (GMT)
         hamm/contrib/Packages from 1997-09-07/19:13 (GMT)

Richard Braakman

Change history:

Version 1997-09-10   (25 overlaps)
  Reported bugs for the new entries.
  Reported extra bugs for the adbbs, perlmagick, and perl-curses entry.
  Added package names to all bug numbers.
  Removed entry for libdl1-dev and manpages-dev since the new manpages-dev
    now conflicts with the most recent libdl1-dev.
  Added note to apsfilter entry. 
  Added entry for abuse-lib and abuse-sfx back in (see notes).
  New entry for bin86 and linux86.
  New entry for tetex-doc and tetex-base.
  Removed entry for perl and libcgi-perl (libcgi-perl 2.76-2 diverts the files)
  Removed entry for ncsa and cgi-scripts (fixed in ncsa 1.4.2-7).

Version 1997-09-04   (25 overlaps)
  Marked orphaned packages.

Version 1997-08-28   (25 overlaps)
  Removed both entries for speak-freely (fixed).
  Removed entry for menu_1.5.2 and tkrat_1.0.3-3 (fixed in tkrat_1.0.3-4).
  Reported bugs for all overlaps that were not reported yet.


Overlap between efax_08a-4 and mgetty-fax_1.1.7-4:
Dirk Eddelbuettel said that this has been fixed in newer releases of
mgetty, but there's a bug in the fix.  The rules file for mgetty moves
usr/man/man1/fax.1 to usr/man/man1/mgetty-fax.1, but then calls debstd
which puts the fax.1 manpage right back :-)
Reported as bug #8573 to mgetty-fax.

Overlap between apsfilter_4.9.1-10 (orphaned) and a2ps_4.4-1 (non-free):
a2ps installs usr/bin/a2ps and usr/man/man1/a2ps.1
apsfilter installs usr/lib/apsfilter/bin/a2ps and usr/man/man1/a2ps.1
Reported as bug #8992 to apsfilter and #8976 to a2ps (reassigned to apsfilter).
In a recent changelog, the new a2ps maintainer Dirk Eddelbuettel reports:
     Bug #8976, however, is unfixable in a2ps: apsfilter contains a
     complete (albeit much older) version of a2ps and installs the a2ps
     binary in an internal directory, but installs the a2ps manual page as
     well! That is braindead --- if apsfilter needs a2ps, it should depend
     on a2ps. Moreover, apsfilter has long been orphaned and does not appear
     to have been updated upstream in a long time either.

Overlap between lprng_3.2.6-1, apsfilter_4.9.1-10 (orphaned) and lpr_5.9-20:
lprng and lpr conflict, but neither conflicts with apsfilter.
Reported as bug #12262 to apsfilter.

Overlap between postgres95_1.09-1 and lprng_3.2.6-2:
Since lprng does not install a monitor binary, it can probably leave
out the manpage.
Reported as bug #8690 to lprng, #8691, #8692, #8998, and #10056 to postgres95.

Overlap between xless_1.7-4 and scilab_2.2-4 (non-free):
scilab provides usr/lib/scilab/bin/xless.  If this is not an xless
version, then this is a widget name collision.  If it is, then it 
should probably be made to use the xless package instead.
Reported as bug #9006 to scilab and #9008 to xless.

Overlap between xless_1.7-4 and linux86_0.0.11-0:
Reported as bug #9008 (shared with above), and #8999 and #9291 to linux86
(now reassigned to bcc).
This overlap will no longer be a problem when linux86 has been removed from
the distribution.

Overlap between amaya-static_0.95-1 (non-free) and amaya_0.95-1 (non-free):
   [13 filenames]
These packages should probably conflict with each other.
Reported as bug #8979 to amaya and #8977 to amaya-static.

Overlap between ircii_2.9.3roof-1 and bitchx-lib_0.70-2:
   [lots, in usr/lib/irc/]
It looks like these packages should conflict, or else bitchx (the
newcomer) should use a different location for its library files, if
possible.  If the library files for both packages are identical,
it might be possible to put them in a separate package.
Reported as bug #8990 to ircii, and #8983 and #8413 to bitchx-lib.

Overlap between ppd-adobe-extra_96.06.12-1 (non-free) and ppd-adobe-misc_96.06.12-1 (non-free):
Reported as bug #12263 to pdd-adobe-misc.
Both packages are orphaned.

Overlap between xtar-dmotif_1.4-2 (contrib) and xtar-smotif_1.4-2 (contrib):
These should probably conflict.
Reported as bugs #9004 to xtar-dmotif and #9009 to xtar-smotif.

Overlap between bsdmainutils_3.4 and zmailer_2.99.48.2-3:
Reported as bug #12268 to bsdmainutils and #12269 to zmailer.

Overlap between ftape-2.0.30_3.03a-1 and kernel-image-2.0.30_2.0.30-8:
ftape checks in its preinst whether a lib/modules/`uname -r`/misc/ftape.o
exists and aborts if that is the case.  But that will not help if
ftape is installed before kernel-image-2.0.30 is.
Reported as bug #12270 to ftape-2.0.30.

Overlap between javalex_1.1.5-1 and java-lex_1.1.4-1:
These seem to be different packages for the same program.
Reported as bug #12273 to javalex,
and #12274 to java-lex (reassigned to ftp.debian.org by maintainer).

Overlap between xemacs19_19.15-3.1 and xemacs20_20.2-1:
Reported as bug #11962 to xemacs20 (shared with above)

Overlap between xemacs19-support_19.15-3.1 and xemacs20-support_20.2-1:
Reported as bug #11962 to xemacs20 (shared with above)

Overlap between gnats_3.101-2, gnats-user_3.101-2 and xemacs20_20.2-1:
gnats conflicts with gnats-user, but neither conflicts with xemacs20.
Reported as bug #12276 to gnats and #12277 to xemacs20.

Overlap between libkde0_0.10.01-1(contrib) and libkde0.9.00_0.9.00-1(contrib):
These are the symlinks, right?  Perhaps they could be generated by ldconfig
in the postinst.  (Both packages already run ldconfig in their postinst.)
Reported as bug #12278 to libkde0.
Both packages are orphaned.

Overlap between amanda-client_2.3.0.4-2 and amanda_2.3.0.4-2:
The debian/rules file copies these from the amanda tree to the
amanda-client tree, so the overlap is probably not a mistake.  If
these are really needed by both the server and client packages, then
perhaps there should be an amanda-common as well.
Reported as bug #11046 and #11943 to amanda.

Overlap between libgdbmg1-dev_1.7.3-21 and libc6-dev_2.0.4-1:
The file is identical in both packages.  Since libgdbmg is designed
to be used with libc6, it should be able to assume that any program
that needs it will also need libc6-dev, and thus already have ndbm.h.
Reported as bug#10640 to libgdbmg1.

Overlap between perlmagick_1.14-1, adbbs_2.1-1 and perl-curses_1.01-1:
Reported as bug #8978 to adbbs, #12748 to perlmagick,
and #12479 to perl-curses.

Overlap between ax25-utils_2.1.37a-1 and rspfd_0.04:
Reported as bug #12279 to ax25-utils and #12280 to rspfd.

Overlap between man-db_2.3.10-41 and libc6-dev_2.0.4-1:
Reported as bug #9841 to man-db, and #10704 and #11941 to libc6-dev.

Overlap between tetex-doc_0.4pl8-2 and tetex-base_0.4pl8-4:
Reported as bug #12752 to tetex-doc.

Overlap between bin86_0.12.0-1 and linux86_0.0.11-0:
The linux86 binary package is now obsolete and bug #12524 to ftp.debian.org
requests its removal.  However, users will still have linux86 installed
and I believe that bin86 should conflict with linux86 for that reason.
I have filed that as bug #12751 to bin86.

Overlap between abuse-sfx_2.00-1 (non-free) and abuse-lib_2.00-1 (non-free):
This overlap is gone from abuse-lib_2.00-2, but abuse-lib_2.00-1 is still
present in non-free.
Reported as bug #12750 to abuse-lib, now reassigned to ftp.debian.org.

TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .

Reply to: