Re: Renaming a package
On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 10:03:11 +0200, Andreas Metzler <ametzler@downhill.at.eu.org> said:
> On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 11:54:35PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
>> Peter S Galbraith <p.galbraith@globetrotter.net> wrote:
>>> Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es> wrote:
>>>> There is not a "standard" to make a package to disappear, but
>>>> there is something you can do to ensure that "apt-get upgrade"
>>>> works: Just make emacs-goodies-extra-el a dummy (empty) package
>>>> which depends on emacs-goodies-el, and make debbugs-el a dummy
>>>> package which depends on debian-el. Make them of extra priority
>>>> and section oldlibs. Remove the conflicts, so that these packages
>>>> are actually installed.
>>> I'm very glad I asked on this list. Many thanks! (makes me
>>> wonder if I should kill the extra package, considering it will
>>> live on anyway)
>> Are we allowed to kill dummy packages after one stable release? If
>> it were created now, I could simply remove it after sarge's
>> release?
> There is no official policy about that, but imho the answer to your
> question is "yes".
Strange. In my opinion the answer is no.
> quoting a recent discussion on debian-devel:
>> -------------- From: Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> To:
>> Debian Developers <debian-devel@lists.debian.org> Subject: Re:
>> Where are we now? (Was: Bits from the RM) Message-ID:
>> <20031003025230.GA2321@doc.ic.ac.uk> Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 03:52:30
>> +0100
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 10:38:18PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
>> > On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 01:22:34PM +0100, Rob Bradford wrote:
>> >> be fun though. I'm planning to only support upgrades from potato
>> >> and woody. So that means i can remove all the cruft about
>> >> upgrading from
>>
>> > I was under the impression (don't ask me how; perhaps my mind
>> > came up with it on it's own) that we only supported
>> > stable->stable+1 upgrades...
>>
>> > Obviously not. Can anyone point me to a comprehensive rationale
>> > why not?
>>
>> Mindless optimism. If you try skipping a release on a box with a
>> fair amount of stuff installed, expect to spend all day fixing it.
>> --------------
The response should be to determine where these glitches lie
and fix them, rather than just compromising on quality.
> I would like to add to this experience that all the packages added
> after woody's release have never been tested whether their
> debconf-scripts run with potato's bash at all (see e.g. #209720).
Sounds like a bug to me.
manoj
--
mophobia, n.: Fear of being verbally abused by a Mississippian.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: