> On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 07:35:41PM +0300, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote: > > I don't see how version string can be safely used here - because > > version strings from original debs are already used to handle > > dependences. There are two different dependency requirements - one > > that original packages should have version not less than ..., and > > other - that dpkg-cross should be fresh enough to place files inside > > new tree. I don't see way to use single version strings to handle both > > things. > > How about having the resulting packages have a versioned conflict with > earlier versions of dpkg-cross itself? This won't help - packages created by dpkg-cross don't depend on dpkg-cross, so conflicting with older dpkg-cross won't prevent libc6-arm-cross created by older dpkg-cross from satisfying dependences of packages created by newer dpkg-cross. I still believe that the current solution - with additional depends / provides pair - is the best one. The only issue it does not address is possibility when X depends on Y, Y-arch-cross is created by new dpkg-cross, and X-arch-cross is created by old dpkg-cross. But this seems to be unsolvable without renaming -arch-cross packages - which I tried to avoid. If at some moment in future paths will change again (e.g. because of multiarch adoption), mentioned problem won't exist, because -dcv2 will be used instead on -dcv1; this will give complete protection. Nikita
Attachment:
pgpYnaLb_zpQV.pgp
Description: PGP signature