Bug#901193: Bug#901003: There is no standard way of removing transitional / dummy packages
Paul Gevers wrote:
> I wonder what is missing there from the perspective of this bug. The
> section about dummy packages exists since before 2009 and currently reads:
> '''
> <title>Dummy packages</title>
> <para>
> Some packages from &oldreleasename; have been split into several
> packages in &releasename;, often to improve system maintainability. To
> ease the upgrade path in such cases, &releasename; often provides
> <quote>dummy</quote> packages: empty packages that have the same name as
> the old package in &oldreleasename; with dependencies that cause the new
> packages to be installed. These <quote>dummy</quote> packages are
> considered redundant after the upgrade and can be safely removed.
> </para>
> <para>
> Most (but not all) dummy packages' descriptions indicate their
> purpose. Package descriptions for dummy packages are not uniform,
> however, so you might also find <command>deborphan</command> with the
> <literal>--guess-<replaceable>*</replaceable></literal> options (e.g.
> <literal>--guess-dummy</literal>) useful to detect them in your system.
> Note that some dummy packages are not intended to be removed after an
> upgrade but are, instead, used to keep track of the current available
> version of a program over time.
> </para>
> </section>
> '''
>
> Suggestions on how to improve that text are welcome.
One thing it doesn't have is any mention of the word "transitional",
which is the one you're actually better off searching for.
(It might also usefully end by referring to the *other* sort of dummy
packages as "dependency metapackages".)
--
JBR with qualifications in linguistics, experience as a Debian
sysadmin, and probably no clue about this particular package
Reply to: