m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) writes: > As the maintainer of a few (popular) library packages I consider > splitting these packages a complex and annoying workaround for > deficiencies in tools. > It is not true that splitting the package is a one time action, every > release which adds new files will require dealing with the split. > > Why was the "implicit Replaces" scheme not considered? > > -- > ciao, > Marco
Because replaces does not allow for removing packages. If you install A:amd64, then A:i386 and then remove A:i386 then files will be removed that are in A:amd64 because they were implicitly replaced. You would quickly end up with missing Changelog and copyright files, READMEs, manpages, include files, ... The only way to make this scheme work would be by "implicit diversion". I.e. on file conflict dpkg would automatically divert all but one architecture to /path/file.dpkg-arch or something. On removal of /path/file it would undo one of the diversions of another arch so there again would be a /path/file. I would only allow this for files in /usr/share though (irespective of their content) and possibly identical files (meaning basically refcount them) in other locations. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87sjihco37.fsf@frosties.localnet
