Re: Possible MBF: Packages depending on iceweasel but not firefox/firefox-esr
On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 05:38:05PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> James McCoy wrote:
> > > > Leaving aside any other reasons: many packages have a versioned
> > > > dependency on iceweasel, and we don't have versioned provides.
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > Yes we do, since dpkg 1.18.
>
> > Yet others parts of our infrastructure still need updates to handle then (e.g., britney).
>
> Ah. So I assume that packages using versioned Provides probably
> shouldn't get uploaded to the archive until that happens?
Not in this case -- you need britney only for testing migration, dose for
archive satisfiability checks. These are fine as long as "iceweasel" is a
real package, and at present it is.
As for actually installing the packages, both apt and dpkg do support
versioned provides. Thus, if "firefox" gains such a Provides: (it currently
lacks it), such dependencies will be satisfied.
--
A tit a day keeps the vet away.
Reply to: