Re: What Debian-qa policy for sorting packages?
Hello,
On Sun, Jan 23, 2000 at 02:53:23PM +0200, arto.astala@nokia.com wrote:
[..]
I have sent a bug against ftp.debian.org asking for the remove of
playmidi, for all the reasons explained.
>
> Now a question:
>
> Is there a clean way (other than release notes) to
> direct the user of playmidi to installing and using
> timidity?
>
> I know all sorts of packaging trickery can be used to
> replace a package with another, but this leaves two points
> open: informing the user and letting user remove the old
> package.
>
> Also a note:
> If we remove playmidi from woody could we at least
> update the description in potato to say it is going
> to be removed, please use timidity instead.
[..]
I have made a suggestion for this (Cf "dpkg | dselect| apt : Debian-qa
fields planned ?" thread).
The idea was to have another file, beyond Packages.gz, namely : Stake.gz
(Stake : Security Team and quality-Assurance Keep or Exclude file), that
would not be cache by apt, and with only headers, something like that :
Package: playmidi
Section: withdrawned
Security: quiet | remove /* you can KEEP; or you're strongly encourage
to REMOVE it for security reasons */
Replacements: timidity [| <package>
Description: <explanations>
Hamish Moffat has suggested that something could be implemented without
all these new fields, but by the use of Conflicts.
Cheers,
--
Thierry LARONDE
thierry.laronde@polynum.com
website : http://www.polynum.com
Reply to: