Re: Package splitting and upgrades
On Fri, Mar 01, 2002 at 11:15:45AM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> When a package `foo' in potato is split in two for woody, `foo' and `bar',
> it is considered acceptable that people upgrading from potato to woody
> lose the functionality provided by `bar' and have to read the release
> notes to know why? What if there are a lot of splits like this and the
> release notes becomes several kilometers long? Is this the type of
> quality we want for our users?
If you don't want to use a dependency, you can use a Debconf note
in order to inform people that they have to install bar since it
is now provided out of foo.