Re: Attempting to adopt two packages
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Attempting to adopt two packages
- From: Felipe Sateler <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 17:54:09 -0400
- Message-id: <email@example.com>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20060310231732.GC11348@andromeda>
Done some work, now I might be ready.
Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2006 at 05:35:15PM -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote:
>> contact Matt, but so far I haven't received any response (mail was sent
>> on 11/01/06). I do know I have to file an ITA bug to each package, but I
> In the case of installwatch, you should retitle the 'O'rphan bug
> instead: http://packages.qa.debian.org/installwatch => #347469
> What you want to happen, is that anyone who has either of installwatch
> or checkinstall now, ends up with the new version of whatever the new
> packagename will be. Do it by setting
> Package: foo
> Replaces: bar
> Conflicts: bar
> The overloaded combination of Conflicts+Replaces means "this is the
> new name for package bar", so it will cause files in bar but not foo
> to be removed.
Done this too. However, I can't install it via dpkg, only through apt. dpkg
argues that it can't uninstall installwatch because checkinstall needs it.
Duh! I guess this isn't much of a concern, really.
> Note that if there were conffiles in bar which you wanted to become
> owned by package foo, and you wanted to change the contents of that
> conffile too, you would have to do extra work in preinst (but this
> doesn't appear to be the case).
No, it isn't. Installwatch had no conffiles.
>> 3) Actually, the source packages need merging anyway. Do the
>> changelogs need merging? How is that done?
> Copying the changelog for package "bar" to a new file
> changelog-bar-old is probably the cleanest way.
> You might consider requesting uploads as an NMUs initially, though if
> it were a QA-owned package this would be a "QA upload" rather than an
Ok, I'll do that when I'm ready. However, I've got a new question. Package
directories (such as /usr/doc/<package> or /usr/lib/<package>) are to be
named after the Debian package or the real package? Note that although
checkinstall and installwatch come together, they are still two separate
packages (one includes the other). So the question really is: documentation
for _both_ installwatch and checkinstall go
into /usr/share/doc/checkinstall, or I make a new
directory /usr/share/installwatch? The installwatch library (which is not
intended to be shared) goes into /usr/lib/installwatch
or /usr/lib/checkinstall? So far, I've favored Debian package names.