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

Re: Bug#528892: please add info-dir-section to your info files

On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 04:50:32PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Sun, 17 May 2009, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > So there's several options that come to mind for that:
> > > 
> > >   * We don't care, and expect users might miss docs on the dir file in
> > >     some cases or need to upgrade dpkg or any of the info-readers.
> > >   * Make info providing packages depend on install-info.
> > >   * Make info providing packages Break old dpkgs.
> > >   * Not remove calls to install-info from packages until squeeze+1
> > >     (and make install-info wrappers not warn in some conditions).
> > > 
> > > Probably the sanest and safest is the last one, but slowest and with
> > > less immediate benefits. OTOH not registering some docs on the dir
> > > file is not that grave, as they will get readded whe upgrading.
> > > So I'd go for the "we don't care", but would not mind being more
> > > conservative.
> > 
> > Since all packages that use install-info need to be changed, options 2)
> > seems doable, and since install-info used to be provided by dpkg it even
> > makes sense. I do not have experience with the behaviour of Break during
> > upgrade (with aprt or aptitude) to comment on 3)
> And then people would file bugs to demote it to Recommends/Suggests
> because it's not necessary for the application to work.

These will be invalid bugs: install-info currently part of a package 
"Essential: yes" so it is not a regression. Such dependency can be removed in
squeeze+1. Arguably, this is a bug to remove install-info from the base system
without prior notice to the user.

> The best solution is to depend on the version of dpkg that breaks the
> non-updated info browsers. That way people are forced to upgrade dpkg and
> the info browsers at the same time (and install-info is installed).
> On the downside, it will make backports painful (unless those dependencies
> are manually removed in the backport).

Let's make upgrade work correctly before thinking about backports.

Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>

Imagine a large red swirl here. 

Reply to: