Re: desktop-command-not-in-package: link to an arch-dependent package in a arch-independent package
Hi Ralf ,
Ralf Treinen a écrit :
For me solution 1 is also justified when putting the .desktop file into
the arch-dependent package. Since the arch-dependent package depends
on the common package lintian shouldn't complain
Well, at first glance I wanted to make the two packages cross-dependend
(A depends on B and B depends on A) for force the installing of both
packages at the same time. This was not a good idea, of course.
True, but this is really an exceptional case. I suspect the normal case is
that one installs both packages.
Yep, exactly. OTOH, I will just move the small desktop file in the
arch-dependent one, which is going to spoil some additional bytes, but
nothing too serious fortunately :)
The only consequence is a typical conflict when installing the new
package because a file was moved from a package to another one, with
dependency issues (something I already experienced):
installed:package A
installed:package B contains <desktop file>
new:package A [new version] contains <desktop file>
new:package B [new version]
Typicall update step when updating A:
- A depends on B, will update B later
- remove A
- installing new A, but <desktop file> already exist
==> FAIL
Playing with 'Conflicts: A (<= old), B (<= old)' and/or 'Replaces: A (<=
old), B (<= old)' does not seem to do any good. Humm, I'm wondering if
the "Let's ignore the minor lintian warning" is not the correct solution
after all.
Reply to: