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

Re: Version specific packages

On Wed, Jan 27, 1999 at 10:54:57AM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:

> Description: a language for scientific graphics programming. [...]

/me fetches gri... nope, it's not in the distribution. Are the .deb's
available somewhere?

> gri_2.2.0 contains the a lot more stuff (HTML and postscript manual, 
> info, emacs mode) as well as the _same_ binary and .cmd files:

Hmmm... are you saying the "gri" package doesn't contain the same files as
the gri-version package?

> As such, I don't want gri_2.2.0 and gri-2.2.0_2.2.0 installed at
> the same time because gri_2.2.0 includes the gri-2.2.0_2.2.0
> binary.

Sounds right. Not having seen the packages, it sounds like you want to have
at least gri (binaries, manpages and stuff), gri-doc (possibly gri-doc-ps,
gri-doc-html and gri-examples) and perhaps something else.

> > Package: gri
> > Version: 3.14
> > Conflicts: gri-3.14
> > 
> > Package: gri-3.14
> > Version: 3.14
> > Provides: gri
> This would be the way to spell out the dependences when using alternatives?

No, it's just in case some other pacakge in the distribution ever depends on
gri (the gri-doc packages for example)

> I would still have a `Conflicts' line with an non-official package.

I don't think that's a problem.  It would be a problem if it was a
dependency.  Even in that case I think it's ok to have something like:

Package: gri-doc
Version: 2.2-1
Depends: gri (= 2.2-1) | gri-doc-2.2

because the package is provided by something in the distribution
(technically speaking non-free is not part of the distribution, but it's ok
to depend on non-free IFF there's an alternative in main)


Reply to: