On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 09:48:26PM -0600, Ardo van Rangelrooij wrote:
> I'm aware of that. I plan to fix this mess as follows:
> - uploading a new version with changed (= correct) package names based on
> the library soname, meaning libexpat0 and libexpat0-dev
> - uploading two dummy packages whose sole purpose are to provide a smooth
> transition: libexpat1-dev which is only dependent on libexpat0-dev and
> libexpat1 which is only dependent on libexpat0 and has the formentioned
> symlink
> - file bug reports against all dependent packages to change (for the 2nd
> time :-( ) their dependencies (which severity is appropriate here?)
I'm sorry, but it's too late to start transitions like this for
woody. (And has been for almost a month now, see [0]).
You need to expect to support having "Depends: libexpat1" imply
libexpat.so.1, libexpat.so.1.0.0 and libexpat.so.0 are all the same
library and are what upstream apparently calls libexpat.so.0.1.0. You
may wish to ask upstream to skip .so.1 so as to cause less breakage on
Debian systems; but otherwise you'll have to do something like make a
libexpat1g package that conflicts with libexpat1, and put all this down
to a learning experience.
Cheers,
aj
[0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2001/debian-devel-announce-200111/msg00006.html
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
"Security here. Yes, maam. Yes. Groucho glasses. Yes, we're on it.
C'mon, guys. Somebody gave an aardvark a nose-cut: somebody who
can't deal with deconstructionist humor. Code Blue."
-- Mike Hoye,
see http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/armadillos.txt
Attachment:
pgpOt5BDGyd2p.pgp
Description: PGP signature