Re: RFC: Upstream author renamed his software
On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 10:36:11AM -0600, Steve Langasek <firstname.lastname@example.org> was heard to say:
> Not if nothing depends on the new package to automatically pull it in.
> There are other reasons for conflicts/replaces to be used, which can't
> be automatically distinguished from "this is an old package"; so to get
> an automatic upgrade, some package the user already has installed must
> be changed to depend on the new package.
What happened to the proposal for a new header (Obsoletes: or
Replacement-For:) which would provide the information that the new
package name is meant to be a replacement for the old one? I'm pretty
sure the idea was brought up a few times, but I don't know what the
resolution was. Is it technically infeasible, or is it considered
to be a Bad Idea, or is it just not implemented yet?
/-------------------- Daniel Burrows <email@example.com> -------------------\
| "I've struggled with reality for thirty-five years, |
| but I'm glad to say that I finally won." |
| -- _Harvey_ |
\------- (if (not (understand-this)) (go-to http://www.schemers.org)) --------/