Re: (Beware helix packages) Re: [CrackMonkey] The right to bare legs

[Peter Teichman <peter@helixcode.com>]

On Tue, Aug 29, 2000 at 10:02:04PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > No, there is no difference between our apps and the upstream in most
> > cases. We do brand gnome-core and gdm, but those are the only packages
> > I can think of offhand. Those are only graphics changes, substituting
> > some of our images in place of the defaults.
> 
> Okay, fine.  Name the Helixified packages under the following scheme:
> 
> Package: helix-gnome-core
> Conflicts: gnome-core
> Provides: gnome-core
> 
> Package: helix-gdm
> Conflicts: gdm
> Provides: gdm
> 
> (The Provides: gdm isn't necessary if nothing depends on it, and off the
> top of my head I can't think of anything that would depend on a display
> manager.)

The task-helix-core package I provide depends on gdm. That's the only
one I can think of offhand, though, and I would want to depend on
helix-gdm there.

This solution looks like the best one. I'll start rebuilding our
packages immediately.

> > We are only collecting existing apps in an easily installed and
> > updated set. We have never claimed to do anything else.
> 
> Then why not just ship the Debian versions?  Or, if you making
> non-Helixified changes and bugfixes, why not submit them back to Debian?

The reason why we aren't shipping the Debian versions is that the
current binary packages are guaranteed to work on both potato and
woody, so I have to provide all the dependencies in our packages.

This is very broken. Fixing this is going to be part of the grand
rebuild for helix-* packages.

Peter