Re: dummy packages and "Replaces:" field
On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 12:02:44PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 12:38:34PM -0300, Margarita Manterola wrote:
> > On 6/23/05, Roberto C. Sanchez <email@example.com> wrote:
> > > OK. How would I make use of this. I was going to adopt iceme and
> > > icepref, but then I saw that they are abandoned upstream. They have
> > > become modules of IceWMCP. I am going to package IceWMCP with the
> > > intent that it replace iceme and icepref.
> > >
> > > Someone recommended that I use dummy packages of iceme and icepref that
> > > depend on icewmcp. But, if I also make icewmcp Replace and Conflict
> > > with iceme and icepref, will that not cause problems (since the new
> > > dummy versions of iceme and icepref will depend on icewmpc)?
> > Well, of course, you cannot adopt both methods. Either you use the
> > dummy package method or you use the Replace and Conflict method.
> Right. However, what I would like is to be able to do it *without*
> using dummy packages. I think that what I want is not possible without
> dummy packages. That is where I see a problem. The current
> Replaces/Conflicts mechanism doesn't handle it all well.
It's not designed nor intended to do what dummy packages do. It's meant
to be used in cases where two packages don't coexist, so installing one
automatically removes the other.
> I agree a change that makes it work more elegantly would be nice.
Not to the Replaces/Conflicts behavior. You must introduce a new
field--see #33344 or #77325.
Society is never going to make any progress until we all learn to
pretend to like each other.