Re: new fields in debian/control
- To: Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de>
- Cc: Wichert Akkerman <wichert@cistron.nl>, debian-devel@lists.debian.org, debian-dpkg@lists.debian.org, debian-policy@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: new fields in debian/control
- From: Daniel Burrows <Daniel_Burrows@brown.edu>
- Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 19:49:46 -0400
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20000717194946.A5049@bluegreen>
- Mail-followup-to: Daniel Burrows <Daniel_Burrows@brown.edu>, Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de>, Wichert Akkerman <wichert@cistron.nl>, debian-devel@lists.debian.org, debian-dpkg@lists.debian.org, debian-policy@lists.debian.org
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] Pine.NEB.4.21.0007171418310.10181-100000@neptun.fachschaften.tu-muenchen.de>; from bunk@fs.tum.de on Mon, Jul 17, 2000 at 02:33:34PM +0200
- References: <[🔎] 20000716133226.A658@cistron.nl> <[🔎] Pine.NEB.4.21.0007171418310.10181-100000@neptun.fachschaften.tu-muenchen.de>
On Mon, Jul 17, 2000 at 02:33:34PM +0200, Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de> was heard to say:
> Successor-Of:
> As far as I know, a package isn't upgraded if it's name has changed
> (e.g. fvwm2 -> fvwm or cdgrab -> abcde). This field is meant for this case
> (the new package is "Successor-Of" the old package). There must't be more
> than one successor of a package, and dpkg/apt should treat a package with
> this field as if it still has the name it has before when upgrading.
This is useful (IMO, and not just because I want dselect moved out of the
dpkg package >=) ), but one question: why only one successor? I don't see
this as making the algorithms much easier, and it seems like there are times
where you'd *want* multiple successors; eg, when a big package splits into
a gazillion itty-bitty packages (netbase, netstd, .....)
Daniel
--
/----------------- Daniel Burrows <Daniel_Burrows@brown.edu> -----------------\
| The sigfile hits! | "...drums...drums in the deep!" |
| You feel confused. | J. R. R. Tolkien |
\----------------- The Turtle Moves! -- http://www.lspace.org ----------------/
Reply to: