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

Re: Taking over different packages with a single source package

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
> >packages.
> 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?
> http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s-f-Version
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
> "hbf-cns40-1"?
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
> debian/control?
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.  

Clear skies,

Reply to: