Re: Opinion of the Release Team on the ImageMagick transition
On Tue, Dec 02, 2008, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> Regarding the -dev package names, I'm personally OK if you don't
> introduce transitional packages and just add Provides: fields, because
> AFAICS only 2 packages in the archive have a versioned build-dependency
> on imagemagick.
Concerning Provides, I need to point a slightly related issue which is
that libmagick++-dev is provided by graphicsmagick-libmagick-dev-compat
in unstable and not in experimental.
This means that graphicsmagick-libmagick-dev-compat and imagemagick
need to move together into unstable and into testing. (I don't think
it's possible to install graphicsmagick-libmagick-dev-compat/unstable
with imagemagick/experimental alone though.)
> Does this sound doable from your side? In particular, using Provides is
> much easier than using transitional packages, so it should be less
> effort for you. (Unless somebody has spotted that it won't work, in that
> case please speak up!)
I don't like Provides because they break versionned deps, but you point
that out already; I find real packages are much easier to get right and
reserve less surprizes; but you point out that a small number of
build-deps are actually versionned, so I guess that's fine.
I didn't look into the specifics, but I think the backports people
would appreciate it if it was possible to have build-dependencies which
work in squeeze and lenny.