Re: Fwd: Do I need specific binary package relationships in this case ?

[Jose Luis Rivero <jrivero@osrfoundation.org>]

On 15/01/15 19:12, Ghislain Vaillant wrote:
> 
> 2015-01-15 17:39 GMT+00:00 Jose Luis Rivero <jrivero@osrfoundation.org
> <mailto:jrivero@osrfoundation.org>>:
> 
>     Hello Ghislain:
> 
>     On 15/01/15 18:27, Ghislain Vaillant wrote:
>     > Hi everyone,
>     >
>     > I am currently packaging an update of libnfft. The new version brings
>     > along support for multi-precision, which means more binaries can be
>     > created and a transition should be occuring between the old and new
>     > package layout.
>     >
>     > Version 3.2 is currently in the archive and provides:
>     > - libnfft3-1  -- double precision version
>     > - libnfft3-dev  -- headers and dev stuff
>     >
>     > Version 3.3, which also got a sodump, now builds:
>     > - libnfft3-double2  -- double precision version
>     > - libnfft3-single2  -- single precision version
>     > - libnfft3-long2  -- long double precision version
>     > - libnfft3-dev  -- headers and dev stuff
>     > - libnfft3-2  -- transitional package, should probably install single,
>     > double and long versions
>     >
>     > Do I need to provide any specific breaks / replaces relationship
>     between
>     > the packages to make sure the upgrade path is properly covered ?
>     >
> 
>     When I faced this same situation in the past, I found really useful the
>     following documentation pages:
> 
>      - https://wiki.debian.org/PackageTransition
>      - https://wiki.debian.org/Renaming_a_Package
> 
>     Hope it helps. Kind Regards.
> 
> 
> 
> These are great resources. Thanks for sharing.
> 
> Am I right to assume case #8 in [1] ?
> 

I think that #8 is the your case, yes.

-- 
Jose Luis Rivero <jrivero@osrfoundation.org>