Re: Bug#709758: Replacing a binary package by another one(was: Communication issue?)
On 06/09/13 10:17, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> For example, you made mplayer2 now an upgrade for mplayer.
> I am not sure that is what their maintainers/upstreams intend.
> (maybe it is, but I am not keen on letting foo2/foo-ng maintainer
> decide what is a good upgrade path for foo – that should really
> be decided by foo maintainer).
In controversial cases, can't we avoid this by social pressure ("don't
do that, it's rude")?
At the moment, the way to "force" an package to be superseded is a
transitional package built by foo2 that "takes over" a binary package
name from foo1. It would be entirely possible for the systemd
maintainers to upload src:systemd with a transitional sysvinit package
that depends on systemd-sysv, for instance. They don't do that, of
course, because it would be unwelcome - but it is technically possible.
S
Reply to: