"Marcelo E. Magallon" wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 1999 at 10:54:57AM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
>
> > Description: a language for scientific graphics programming. [...]
>
> /me fetches gri... nope, it's not in the distribution. Are the .deb's
> available somewhere?
I wanted to fix this up before uploading to master.
> > gri_2.2.0 contains the a lot more stuff (HTML and postscript manual,
> > info, emacs mode) as well as the _same_ binary and .cmd files:
>
> Hmmm... are you saying the "gri" package doesn't contain the same files as
> the gri-version package?
gri-VERSION_VERSION contains only the binary and its required command
`library' found in gri_VERSION.
> > I would still have a `Conflicts' line with an non-official package.
>
> I don't think that's a problem. It would be a problem if it was a
> dependency. Even in that case I think it's ok to have something like:
>
> Package: gri-doc
> Version: 2.2-1
> Depends: gri (= 2.2-1) | gri-doc-2.2
>
> because the package is provided by something in the distribution
My initial post said that I currently have:
$ dpkg --info gri_2.2.0-1_i386.deb
Package: gri
Version: 2.2.0-1
Replaces: gri-2.2.0
^^^^^^^^^
$ dpkg --info gri-2.2.0_2.2.0-1_i386.deb
Package: gri-2.2.0
Version: 2.2.0-1
Conflicts: gri (= 2.2.0-1)
Since gri_2.2.0-1_i386.deb will be part of Debian, I wondered
whether it should say it `Replaces: gri-2.2.0' which is an
official package.
Surely this is the same as `Conflicts: gri-2.2.0' ?
--
I'll try having only gri-VERSION_VERSION conflict with "gri (= VERSION)"
and have gri not mention gri-VERSION at all. I'll see if that
works.
Peter
