[Added Rob to recipients, as I assumed he's not subscribed] On 01.08.2012 13:04, Axel Beckert wrote:
Rob Browning wrote:I made a bit of a mess with respect to the emacs metapackage in unstableand wheezy that I'd like to fix. The problem is that both emacs23 and emacs24 provide the emacs metapackage,
[...]
One plausible solution would be to just move the emacs metapackage to its own emacs-defaults source package (a la gcc-defaults), and so a bitof discussion on IRC produced a plan that I'd like to vet here:- Upload a new emacs23 to for wheezy that doesn't provide the emacs binary. - Upload a new emacs-defaults for wheezy that provides the emacs binary. - Upload a new emacs24 to unstable that doesn't provide the emacs binary.With "providing binary", do you mean "building a binary package" or "containing a compiled binary file" as in "/usr/bin/emacs"? The latter would likely break update-alternatives and non-trivial to package, so I suspect you think of the emacs binary-_package_ being built by the new emacs-defaults source-package.
That's what was discussed on IRC, yes. emacs-defaults would be a new source package building a single arch:all binary package named "emacs", with the same semantics as the existing package of that name produced from emacs2{3,4}.
With regards to the version of the emacs-defaults source package (or at least the new emacs binary-package, AFAICS it'll need an epoch added to go down from 24 to 23 again, i.e. use "1:23.$something".
Well, "1:23" would seem to work fine as well, given that it would presumably be a native package.
Rob - as no-one has raised any objections or other suggestions, I think we should move forward with this. Assuming it matches the plan as above, please feel free to go ahead with the upload of emacs-defaults and let us know once it hits NEW so that we can smile nicely at the ftp-team. I'd suggest we get that step sorted out before the uploads of emacs2{3,4} dropping the meta-package.
Regards, Adam