On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 03:33:22PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: > > If foo2 already exists, I'd still go for that solution, but you'll then > > need to ask for foo2 removal via a bug to ftp.debian.org. > That's not possible, I think, unfortunately - we don't want teTeX which > currently provides libkpathsea4 in a source package named foo, err, > libkpathsea3. > We now have tetex-bin_3.0*, libkpathsea4_3.0* and libkpathsea4-dev_3.0 > in testing and would like to get rid of libkpathsea3. In order to make > that easier, it was suggested to rename libkpathsea4-dev to > libkpathsea-dev and request binNMUs of the affected packages. However, > I was concerned whether that would make the libkpathsea3 binary package > disappear, and make all package uninstallable. It will not make libkpathsea3 disappear or make it uninstallable. It will make the libkpathsea3 source package RC buggy, since it will not be possible to do further uploads of the package (for, e.g, security fixes) without either a) overwriting the new libkpathsea-dev that you want to keep, or b) resulting in a rejected upload due to the out-of-date version of libkpathsea-dev. Since (AIUI) you want to drop libkpathsea3 completely for etch, though, that doesn't seem like a problem. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature