Hi, On Mon, 21 Jun 2010, Chad MILLER wrote: > desktopcouch-tools > (no change) > desktopcouch > (+ contains all library files also) > (- Depends on python-desktopcouch, python-desktopcouch-records) > (+ Provides python-desktopcouch, python-desktopcouch-records) > python-desktopcouch > (- all files) > (+ Depends on desktopcouch) > python-desktopcouch-records (+depends on desktopcouch > (- all files) > (+ Depends on desktopcouch) > > Does this sound acceptable?
Sure, if the code is not likely to change to avoid these inter-dependencies, then it's best to have a single package. > Speaking as Upstream, I will have these code dependencies severed before > long. I wasn't thinking as a packager when I approved or wrote the > current code. Sorry, I don't understand what you mean here with your usage of "severed". Are the "code dependencies" going away in the future or will they on the contrary be even more unavoidable ? > * Empty packages with new Depends? I know of "Provides" in Policy, but > I don't know enough about its sufficiency for real, non-"Virtual" packages. If nothing uses versioned dependency on python-desktopcouch-records or python-desktopcouch, then they can be only virtual package (and desktopcouch can even conflict with them to ensure they get removed from the user's systems). Otherwise it's best to keep real transitional packages for one release cycle. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Like what I do? Sponsor me: http://ouaza.com/wp/2010/01/05/5-years-of-freexian/ My Debian goals: http://ouaza.com/wp/2010/01/09/debian-related-goals-for-2010/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
