Re: transitional package question
Hi and sorry for being noisy
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 06:55:04AM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> [Sorry for not getting back to you sooner, and thanks for reminding me]
>
> On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 10:14 +0200, Harald Jenny wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 08:33:27PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> [ Adding an amavisd-new-milter transitional package to amavisd-milter ]
> > > Are the interfaces / configuration of /usr/sbin/amavis{,d}-milter
> > > compatible? i.e. can a user of amavisd-new-milter simply install
> > > amavisd-milter and have (more or less) everything continue to work?
> >
> > Not really, the mailer-daemon as well as amavisd-new need some config changes
> > (which I planned to document in a NEWS file of the transitional package).
>
> My concern here is that people upgrade from lenny to squeeze, pulling in
> the new transitional package, and discover their mail has stopped
> working (or that viruses and spam are no longer being blocked).
I'm currently somewhat lost how this situation can be solved in the best way
for the user - having a package installed which is not even available anymore
is not beneficial for the user so there should be a way of pushing the user
forward to install the new package. As I'm not a packaging expert I'm somehow
running out of ideas - maybe anyone here has a good thought or could point me
to a place where I might borrow one...
>
> > > If so, then an update which simply added a transitional package
> > > depending on amavisd-milter would be ok.
> >
> > Well the update would include bumping the standards version to 3.9.1 and
> > changing
> > Conflicts: amavisd-new-milter
> > to
> > Provides: amavisd-new-milter
> > Breaks: amavisd-new-milter (<< 1:2.7.0)
> > Replaces: amavisd-new-milter (<< 1:2.7.0)
> >
> > (version number is higher than in unstable in case amavisd-new gets an update -
> > or should I include the highest available number?)
>
> << first-version-provided by amavisd-milter?
>
> > > You'd have to take care to
> > > ensure that the binary package had an appropriate version - the version
> > > of amavisd-new-milter in stable is 1:2.6.1.dfsg-1, so it would need to
> > > be higher than that.
> >
> > The current version number is 1.5.0-2 so I guess an appropriate one would be
> > 2:1.5.0-2?
>
> The filenames for packages in the archive don't include the epoch; in
> order to ensure the filenames don't clash it would need to be 2:1.5.0-3
> or similar.
>
> Regards,
>
> Adam
Kind regards
Harald Jenny
Reply to: