Re: Shall we state on naming (again)?
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 08:57:26AM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 08:04:43AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
>
> > > I don't think that we should create both bytecode and native
> > > vesions of a package, unless there is a real need of our users
> > > to have both available. If it is just for the ease of upgrade
> > > than we should rather search for other solutions.
> >
> > No, you don't understand.
> ...
> > So you see, the problem is not that much about wheter we will ship an
> > bytecode version or no (we already ship 6 copies or so of them), but how
> > to handle it so that it will be transparent for our users.
>
> I think that apt-get install hevea must act the same way on all
> architectures, i.e. install transparently either the bytecode or
> the native version with respect to the architecture: the user
> doesn't care.
Yes, ...
now how do we achieve this ?
> It is impossible to make a arch:all package depend on a arch:any
impossible is not french, or so they say ...
> one. So you cannot even make hevea depend on hevea-native.
Arg, no, we don't want both packages installed at the same time, i was
planning on a conflict or something such. Sure we could do diversions or
alternatives, but i don't think it is worth the trouble.
> The other solution is to make the native version depend on the
> bytecode one ; the native (default) version would be empty on
> architectures not supported.
So, because of a technical little problem, we have to clutter the
archive with lot of empty packages ?
Mmm, it is a solution though.
> As you can see, we did not find a proper solution yet.
Yes, and i think the solution would involve deeply the way the archive
is handled right now.
Imagine that we have both the foo_1.0-1_all.deb and the
foo_1.0-1_i386.deb in the archive, but manage to have the native
supporting arch Packages file point to foo_1.0-1_<arch>.deb, while the
not native supporting apps have foo_1.0-1_all.deb in the package files.
This would be a nice solution, don't you think ?
I guess there is a better list than debian-mentors for discussing this,
will look this evening, but in the end, if we want that, we may need to
implement it ourselves. (and do the versioned virtual dependencies
thingy at the same time).
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: