Bug#200264: upload of tetex-bin_2.0.2-13 together with tetex-base_2.0.2-7 (was: Bug#200264: Splitting texdoctk?)
Frank Küster <frank@debian.org> schrieb:
> Hilmar Preusse <hille42@web.de> wrote:
>
>> My patch in 190721 goes a little bit further into the huge split[TM],
>> than it is actually desirable.
>> Actually I propose only to split off
>> /etc/texdoctk/{texdocrc,texdoctk.dat} from tetex-extra and put it
>> into a separate package. tetex-bin will depend on it.
>> Problem: in woody /etc/texdoctk/* are conffiles. A Conflicts-field in
>> tetex-bin will only remove that package, not purge it -- correct?
>> What will happen, if that "to be created" package will try to
>> overwrite them?
>
> I am not really sure, and would like to test. Hi Florent, are the test
> packages you made earlier still available somewhere?
Done the tests, checked into CVS.
> So the way to go probably is the following:
>
> Now:
>
> - tetex-bin declares no relationship at all to texdoctk
> - tetex-extra Conflicts/Replaces/Provides texdoctk
> - files from texdoctk are in tetex-bin and tetex-extra
>
> Future:
>
> - files from texdoctk are in tetex-bin and tetex-base
> - tetex-base declares "Replaces: texdoctk"
and: Replaces: tetex-extra (<< 2.0.2-7)
> - tetex-bin declares Conflicts/Replaces/Provides.
I have tested
- upgrading from unstable, with tetex-extra installed
- upgrading from woody, with texdoctk, but without tetex-extra
installed.
Before uploading, I would like to:
- test upgrade from woody with texdoctk and tetex-extra installed.
- compare my whole tetex-base tree with CVS.
Both can, of course, also done by somebody else. I will neither have
time this weekend, nor am I really willing to copy tetex-base over my
ISDN line.
Read you on Monday,
Frank
--
Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel
Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie
Reply to: