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

Re: Doing a proper package split (cream)

"Christoph Haas" <haas@debian.org> wrote in message [🔎] 200603101433.35281.haas@debian.org">news:[🔎] 200603101433.35281.haas@debian.org...

Now when I install cream-doc (0.34) it looks like this:

$> dpkg -i cream-doc_0.34-2_all.deb
Selecting previously deselected package cream-doc.
dpkg: considering removing cream in favour of cream-doc ...
dpkg: yes, will remove cream in favour of cream-doc.
(Reading database ... 173915 files and directories currently installed.)
Unpacking cream-doc (from cream-doc_0.34-2_all.deb) ...
Setting up cream-doc (0.34-2) ...

Then the situation would look like this:

ic  cream          0.33.1-1
ii  cream-doc      0.34-2

The old cream package is still installed (shouldn't it be "rc"?). While
this is sane for APT it's a bit weird for the user because the
documentation now doesn't fit the main package any more. I would like to
install both new versions when either new package is installed.

For some reason dpkg seems to be getting confused. (or perhaps policy is not clear enough about the way dpkg acts)

It appears to be ignoring the conflict line. It installs your documentation package over the other package as the replaces line allows. However your package does not fully replace the other so the other one is not 'dissapeared'. Interestingly dpkg seems to decide that it should remove cream, but does not.

I think you should just drop the replaces. Then cream-doc would not install at all if 0.33.1-1 is installed. However it would happily install after cream has been upgarded to a new version.

Policy quote:
"A Conflicts entry should almost never have an "earlier than" version clause. This would prevent dpkg from upgrading or installing the package which declared such a conflict until the upgrade or removal of the conflicted-with package had been completed."

That sounds about right to me.

(The above is based on my understanding of how policy claims dpkg should work, but does not nessisarally reflect reality.)

Reply to: