Re: Taking over different packages with a single source package
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Taking over different packages with a single source package
- From: Justin Pryzby <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 10:09:00 -0500
- Message-id: <20051226150900.GA3219@andromeda>
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
- References: <5n4G7-5KZfirstname.lastname@example.org> <5nGV1-4gPemail@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Sun, Dec 25, 2005 at 10:34:04PM +0100, Danai SAE-HAN (?$B4ZC#BQ) wrote:
> Op zon 25 dec 2005 17:30:07 +0100 schreef Justin Pryzby:
> > On Sat, Dec 24, 2005 at 12:14:06AM +0100, Danai SAE-HAN wrote:
> >> I find it too bothersome and clumsy to have a source package for each
> >> and every font, so I would like to use only 1.
> >How many source packages are we talking? Typically, using pristine
> >source tarballs, when possible, is strongly recommended. I can see the
> >justification in repacking to a single sourceball if there are many such
> It would amount to 15 packages. Unpacked, the fonts would take 38MB
> so it makes sense to provide only those that the user needs.
So, you want to have separate binary packages, for the convenience of
the user, but a single source package, for your own convenience? I
guess that it is reasonable.
> >> My questions:
> >> - What to do about the old changelogs if I want to use a single
> >> Debian source for all packages?
> > Are they all the same? You might just include them as
> > changelog.Debian-historical.
> No, they're not the same. hbf-cns40-[1-7], hbf-cns40-b5, hbf-jfs56
> and hbf-kanji48 each have their own changelog and Debian source
> package. hbf-cns40-1 to hbf-cns40-7, while each having their own
> Debian source package, have the same changelog.
> All changelogs contain only two or three items each.
You might also concatenate them all into ./debian/changelog.Debian...
> >> - Do I just put dummy entries in the changelog up to version 1.0.4?
> > Anything is probably better than dummy entries:)
> >> - Do I put the content of the old changelogs altogether in one
> >> changelog entry?
> > Why?
> As a filler... I could perhaps use the contents of the old changelogs
> in 1.0-1, 1.0-2 and 1.0-3?
> Because if I upload hbf-fonts-1.0-1, the already existing packages
> won't get updated because they are either 1.0-2, 1.0-3 or 1.0-3.1.
That has nothing to do with the changelogs, though.
> Or can I circumvent it using 1: as "epoch" in the version number?
Not a clean way of doing it.
> >> - What about the name of the Debian source packages ("hbf-cns40-1",
> >> "hbf-jfs56", etc. in comparison with the new source package
> >> "hbf-fonts")?
> > What about it?
> Won't it give any problems if my source package "hbf-fonts" provides
> "hbf-cns40-1" if there's already a Debian source package called
What do you mean "provides"? Do you mean, if the ./debian/control
file says "Provides:", or if the two packages include common files?
If they include common files, then you could either make the packages
"Conflict:", or make your package "Replaces:" the other one, or ...
> Should I put a Provdes:, Replaces: and Conflicts: field in
If Anthony Fok is agreeable, then this might work. You should test
that the upgrade ("downgrade") happens as you indend.
> >> - Should I put the old packages on the "Replace:" line? Or even set
> >> "Conflicts: hbf-foo1 (<=1.0.3), hbf-foo2 (<=1.0.2), etc."?
> > Best to get in touch with Anthony Fok so you can coordinate it. If
> > you're going to do separate and pristine source packages, then why not
> > just use his?
There is also the concept of "disappear"ing a package, which might be
useful to you.