Re: Solving lintian warnings for multi-package roxterm
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 00:58, Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> wrote:
> David Kalnischkies <kalnischkies@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Sidenote: I am not sure why the usage of 'disappearing packages' was
>> removed from the wiki as dpkg and APT support them in squeeze - at least
>> in my eyes it looked like the holy grail to prevent maintainers from
>> using all these half-working tricks in battle against APT, but i will
>> leave that up to decide for others as IANAD{D,M}.
>
> You can't use disappearing packages with Policy-compliant packages so far
> as I can tell, since it would require both packages provide the same
> /usr/share/doc directory and changelog file, which is a Policy violation.
oldpkg depends on newpkg - and in terms of a package rename it should be
coming from the same source package.
/usr/share/doc/oldpkg is a link to /usr/share/doc/newpkg in both, the oldpkg
and the newpkg, so that new- can take over the last remaining file of oldpkg.
Isn't that exactly what §12.5 allows?
Quoting: http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-docs.html#s-copyrightfile
> /usr/share/doc/package may be a symbolic link to another directory
> in /usr/share/doc only if the two packages both come from the same source
> and the first package Depends on the second. These rules are important
> because copyrights must be extractable by mechanical means.
The usr-share-doc-symlink-to-foreign-package tag in lintian also only triggers
if the packages are not from the same source package.
So is there another section in conflict with this one or
have i just misunderstood something?
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
Reply to: