Re: Attempting to adopt two packages
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Attempting to adopt two packages
- From: Justin Pryzby <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 17:05:30 -0500
- Message-id: <20060321220530.GA9336@andromeda>
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20060310231732.GC11348@andromeda> <email@example.com>
On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 05:54:09PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> 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.
But checkinstall doesn't need it, right? You should probably drop
that Depends .. You want to have Replaces+Conflicts, though. You
probably also want to add Provides, or a dummy package with the name
of the old Debian package which is now included in the new package, to
force the new package to be installed.
> > 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
> > NMU.
> Ok, I'll do that when I'm ready. However, I've got a new question. Package
> directories (such as /usr/doc/<package>
/usr/doc/ is now a policy violation; documentation must live in
> 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.
That makes sense to me too; /usr/share/installwatch smells like
namespace polution, and asks for confusion if not collision someday.