Re: Suggestion for tex-common
Norbert Preining <preining@logic.at> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2005, Frank Küster wrote:
>> Replaces is enough for tex-common to take over the files, I don't see
>> why we need to conflict. On the other hand, the new tetex(-base) and
>> texlive packages need a versioned Depends on the new tex-common
>> versions, so that no one ends up with a system without
>> /var/cache/fonts.
>
> Ok, I have for tetex-base/control:
> -Depends: texinfo (>= 4.0b-1), debconf, ucf (>= 1.02), tex-common (>= 0.4)
> +Depends: texinfo (>= 4.0b-1), debconf, ucf (>= 1.02), tex-common (>= 0.7)
>
> (I guess the next version should be 0.7)
>
> and for tex-common/control
> +Replaces: tetex-base
This should be "Replaces: tetex-base (<=3.0-7)". If you have a Replaces
without a version, it can overwrite files in tetex-base any time later
without dpkg complaining, and that's for sure not what we want. AFAICT
a Replaces without version only makes sense if a package supersedes an
other one completely.
> One thing: I have *not* added a ChangeLog entry for now out of the
> following reason: I don't know how to deal with a not released version.
> DO I have to make a
> dch -i -D UNRELEASED
> ?? (There was some discussion about this on the list)
I never use dch; rather I use Emacs with the changelog mode from the
dpkg-dev-el package. But why not simply try with dch; you can manually
change it afterwards if necessary.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer
Reply to: