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

Re: Transition packages for libghc6-*-dev


sorry for the delay, I’ve been busy. 

Am Mittwoch, den 02.02.2011, 14:19 +0100 schrieb Giovanni Mascellani:
> On 30/01/2011 14:25, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> > I’m looking at the state of the ghc7 upgrade right now. In a chroot, I
> > installed ghc and haskell-devscripts, and then haskell-transformers
> > (which the new mtl will depend on). I’m wondering: Shouldn’t that
> > package Conflict with the old libghc6-*-dev packages?
> I never worked on such a transition, so the entire set of implication
> isn't clear to me. I'm trying to understand how different behaviors in
> setting packaged relationships would impact user experience, could you
> please help me to make my mind clearer?
> First thing, the new ghc package conflicts and replaces with ghc6, so
> we're sure that no two different version of the same Haskell library
> will be installed at the same time: if they were, they would require ghc
> and ghc6 to be installed at the same time, contradiction.

Right, although that only holds for -dev and -prof, the -doc packages do
not have such strict dependencies.

> Now, we have to decide whether libghc6-*-* are automatically upgraded to
> the corresponding libghc-*-* for ghc version 7, aren't we?

Right. If we say we don’t care about this, then this saves us a
considerable amount of work, but the users might have a disadvantage –
also because apt-get would not upgrade ghc6 to ghc without removing all
libraries and then the user would have to manually reinstall all
libraries, e.g. remember which libraries he wants to be installed. (Heh,
can be a good thing, but we should not decide that :-))

> If we wanted to have the automatic upgrade, then introducing a dummy
> package which depends on the new package should be enough. Otherwise, we
> just don't add the dummy package.
> Am I correct?


> What would change if we added a Conflicts: from the new
> package to the old one?

It seems that for -dev packages, this might not be needed for reasons
given above. But -doc packages might require that, and then we can add
it for consistency everywhere.

Did I mention that it is unfortunate that package renaming was not
implemented within apt-get a decade ago?


Joachim "nomeata" Breitner
Debian Developer
  nomeata@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C
  JID: nomeata@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: