Re: FVWM 2.2 officially released
On Tue, 23 Feb 1999, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> fvwm2 package? I know that this is an ongoing problem, so here are
> the alternatives as I see them:
>
> (1) Have fvwm become an empty package (priority extra) which Depends:
> fvwm2. OK.
>
> (3) Use some nice, new Replaced-by: feature or similar. If it
> exists.
Just have fvwm2 Provides: and Replaces: fvwm.
This is how it is done usually.
It's up to apt/dselect to detect that a new package replaces another one.
> Also, fvwm is now copying the Linux numbering scheme of 2.2.x being
> the stable version and 2.3.x being unstable. How would it be to have
> a separate (conflicting) fvwm2-beta package following the development
> track?
What for? Isn't the stable version enough? In case it's _really_ needed
(the policy says alpha/beta version should not be packaged), it should
probably go to the experimental section.
--
- Vincent RENARDIAS vincent@{{ldsol,pipo}.com,{debian,openhardware}.org} -
- Debian/GNU Linux: http://www.openhardware.org Logiciels du soleil: -
- http://www.fr.debian.org Open Hardware: http://www.ldsol.com -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-"Microsoft est à l'informatique ce que le grumeau est à la crépe..." -
Reply to: