[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Renaming a package

On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 03:05:08PM +0200, Daniel Kobras wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 11:46:12PM +0200, Daniel Kobras wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 01:06:20PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > Oooh, Method B is one I haven't seen proposed before in the context of dummy
> > > packages.  That looks far more elegant to me than the alternatives.  Have
> > > you tested that dpkg really does do the right thing here, given that the
> > > replacing package gets installed first (since it's a dependency)?

> > I did that once in 2003 for dx but hit a different bug then: dpkg would
> > try to configure oldpkg when it had disappeared already. It worked fine
> > with a patch to dpkg that went into the sarge version, but I haven't
> > tested it since then. I'll give it another try to be sure.

> Looking at the actual control file I used back then, an additional
> Conflicts: oldpkg (<< First-Dummy-Version) is needed to ensure correct
> ordering. newpkg needs to be unpacked after the dummy version of
> oldpkg. Which makes the solution a lot less elegant, but apt still is
> able to cope. Not sure about britney, though.

I don't expect britney to have any problems at all with that.

> Anyway, as noted in my previous mail to this thread, when testing this
> method on unstable and sarge, I hit a bug in apt that rules it out for
> etch. If you still like this method, we can get the necessary fixes in
> and promote it for etch+1, though.

IMHO it definitely seems worth doing.

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

Reply to: