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

Re: svgalibg1 | svgalibg-dummyg1 considered harmful

> > Your suggestion seems to be:
> > 
> >  - Both packages still Conflict&Replace each other.
> >  - svgalib-dummyg1 doesn't anymore Provide: svgalibg1
> >  - The shlibs file just contains "svgalibg1" as dependency
> >  - Packages that can work with the dummy lib replace the dependency
> >    somehow by "svgalibg1|svgalib-dummyg1".
> Yep.

Ok, then I'll do that in a next release of both packages (But, BTW, I
don't wanna be the svgalib maintainer!! :-).

> I agree it's not clean (I don't think it's desperately hard though,
> [except maybe for people who think debmake is the only way to
> package things]), but what's the alternative? The ludicrous
> situation where dpkg will happily allow you install a package which
> is functionally useless?
> And since it's only for 6 packages I think it should be done. (joeyh
> is the maintainer for 3 of those 6, and AIUI he is happy to do the
> requisite uncleanness)

You're right that it's the better way that dpkg doesn't allow you to
install stuff that cannot work at all. And I think I'll best provide
an example how to do it in debian/rules... :-)


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: