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

Re: Version specific packages

"Marcelo E. Magallon" wrote:

> 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?

I wanted to fix this up before uploading to master.
> > 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?

gri-VERSION_VERSION contains only the binary and its required command
`library' found in gri_VERSION.

> > 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

My initial post said that I currently have:

$ dpkg --info gri_2.2.0-1_i386.deb
 Package: gri
 Version: 2.2.0-1
 Replaces: gri-2.2.0

$ dpkg --info gri-2.2.0_2.2.0-1_i386.deb
 Package: gri-2.2.0
 Version: 2.2.0-1
 Conflicts: gri (= 2.2.0-1)

Since gri_2.2.0-1_i386.deb will be part of Debian, I wondered
whether it should say it `Replaces: gri-2.2.0' which is an
official package.  
Surely this is the same as `Conflicts: gri-2.2.0' ?


I'll try having only gri-VERSION_VERSION conflict with "gri (= VERSION)" 
and have gri not mention gri-VERSION at all.  I'll see if that


Reply to: