Re: Few questions
Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
>> So can I write:
>>
>> Package: package1
>> Conflicts: package2
>> Replaces: package2
>> [...]
>> Package: package2
>> Conflicts: package1
>> Replaces: package1
>> Provides: package1
>
> That should work quite well. If any third-party packages want to depend
> on either of your packages, they would just have to do "Depends:
> package1" and that should pull in package1 if it isn't already
> installed. If package2 is already installed, the dependencies would
> already be satisfied.
Fantastic then! Thanks for the reply!
> Presumably you've decided most people would
> rather have package1 than package2?
Well, I'd say that package1 has less dependencies and gives people more
freedom to choose what they need, while package2 make it easy for
beginners because it includes all what is needed (without having to
install things by hand prior the install of package1). So it makes sense
to do it this way.
> Finally, if package1 and package2 contain a lot of files that not only
> are installed at the same path/filename but also are identical, you
> might want to instead stick those into a third binary package
> "package1-common" and have both package1 and package2 Depend upon that.
Yes, this is exactly what I did, as I said in my last email. Also this
was needed as both package1 and package2 uses the same config files in
/etc, and I wanted to avoid the divertion (correct spelling?) problem...
> That would save disk space on the Debian mirrors, and also save
> bandwidth for people who install package1 and then later change their
> minds and want package2 instead (or vice versa).
Yep, 100% agreed, I found it quite nice too, as my own (custom) Debian
repository is mirrored quite often as well.
Thanks to all people that replied, I think I have a working solution
now, and it's in a lot better shape.
Thomas
Reply to: