Bug#249570: Cleanup of *jade relationship

[Neil Roeth <neil@debian.org>]

On May 25, Yann Dirson (ydirson@altern.org) wrote:
 > On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 10:30:20AM +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
 > > Package: openjade1.3
 > > Version: 1.3.2-4
 > > 
 > > This package probably should contain
 > > Provides: openjade
 > > 
 > > to satisfy dependencies of packages that require or advise to have
 > > "openjade" installed.
 > 
 > I have already considered that when initially packaging openjade1.3.
 > 
 > The problem is that package "openjade" contains a very particular version of
 > openjade.  Indeed I'd be more happy to have 1.3 in the "openjade" package
 > and 1.4devel in a differently-named package, but things are not that way.
 > 
 > If openjade1.3 declares to provide openjade, that will still cause APT to
 > install openjade unless told otherwise, so this is not a complete solution
 > anyway.
 > 
 > I've already suggested that packages should depend/suggest/whatever
 > openjade1.3 preferably to openjade and jade, using 'or' groups with
 > openjade1.3 as first term.  This would allow people to use
 > whatever version they want, while having openjade1.3 being the default one
 > installed.
 > 
 > I CC this message to debian-sgml.  I'll let this bug open, and if noone
 > objects, I'll start mass-filing 'normal' bugs on those packages that declare
 > a relation[1] on openjade without listing openjade1.3 first.  I'll also
 > mass-file 'wishlist' bugs on those that mention only jade and none of
 > openjade* - wishlist because openjade* are more strictly addhering to the
 > standard, and some tools/stylesheets may not be compatible with them.

Why do you think it's a bug to depend on openjade over openjade1.3?

P.S. No argument with your wishlist bugs about depending on only jade.

-- 
Neil Roeth