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

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: