Re: Renaming the package and other things
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 12:48:46AM -0300, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Christoph Berg wrote:
>
> > Re: Nelson A. de Oliveira in <4324DA5A.3070508@bol.com.br>
> >
> >> I am planning to rename the source package to "biofox" only,
> >> instead mozilla-firefox-biofox.
> >
> >
> > Why? The user won't see the source package name change. It's only
> > extra hassle for you and the ftp-masters. If you really want, rename
> > the binary package only.
> >
> > NB, how does upstream call the package/program/tarball?
>
> Upstream names it "biofox" only.
> Yes, I know. I've made a mistake using the same name on the binary and
> on the source package :-(
> That happened because biofox, as the name says, was only to Firefox.
> Upstream author changed this now and made it available also to Mozilla.
> I want to correct my mistake now to avoid bigger problems later.
>
> What I am thinking is:
>
> Source package: biofox
> Binary package: biofox (that can be used both on Firefox and on Mozilla
> Suite)
> Binary package: mozilla-firefox-biofox (transitional dummy package
> depending on "biofox", so users will upgrade to the new biofox).
>
> Doubt:
> Does biofox (the binary package) must use Conflicts, Provides and/or
> Replaces?
I think it needs replaces, since it will contain files which used to
be in binary package mozilla-firefox-biofox. If biofox is unpacked
before m-f-b is unpacked, there will be a problem (and you don't want
to have to invent a strange way of guaranteeing some certain order).
It shouldn't use Conflicts, because if it conflicted with m-f-b, then
m-f-b would be uninstallable (no consistent way to have it installed).
It shouldn't need Provides, because your transition scheme works.
(Users which presently have m-f-b installed will end up with biofox
installed.) Please be sure to change the long description of m-f-b to
include the word "transitional" such that some tools will pick up on
it. (And remember to remove it post-etch, I guess).
It doesn't need conflicts+provides+replaces, because that is a
special-case combination which dpkg interprets as "this binary package
is the new name of some old binary package" (right?).
--
Clear skies,
Justin
Reply to: