On Sun, Dec 25, 2005 at 10:34:04PM +0100, Danai SAE-HAN (?$B4ZC#BQ) wrote: > Op zon 25 dec 2005 17:30:07 +0100 schreef Justin Pryzby: > > > On Sat, Dec 24, 2005 at 12:14:06AM +0100, Danai SAE-HAN wrote: > >> I find it too bothersome and clumsy to have a source package for each > >> and every font, so I would like to use only 1. > >How many source packages are we talking? Typically, using pristine > >source tarballs, when possible, is strongly recommended. I can see the > >justification in repacking to a single sourceball if there are many such > >packages. > > It would amount to 15 packages. Unpacked, the fonts would take 38MB > so it makes sense to provide only those that the user needs. So, you want to have separate binary packages, for the convenience of the user, but a single source package, for your own convenience? I guess that it is reasonable.
> >> My questions: > >> - What to do about the old changelogs if I want to use a single > >> Debian source for all packages? > > Are they all the same? You might just include them as > > changelog.Debian-historical. > > No, they're not the same. hbf-cns40-[1-7], hbf-cns40-b5, hbf-jfs56 > and hbf-kanji48 each have their own changelog and Debian source > package. hbf-cns40-1 to hbf-cns40-7, while each having their own > Debian source package, have the same changelog. > All changelogs contain only two or three items each. You might also concatenate them all into ./debian/changelog.Debian... > >> - Do I just put dummy entries in the changelog up to version 1.0.4? > > Anything is probably better than dummy entries:) > >> - Do I put the content of the old changelogs altogether in one > >> changelog entry? > > Why? > > As a filler... I could perhaps use the contents of the old changelogs > in 1.0-1, 1.0-2 and 1.0-3? > Because if I upload hbf-fonts-1.0-1, the already existing packages > won't get updated because they are either 1.0-2, 1.0-3 or 1.0-3.1. That has nothing to do with the changelogs, though. > Or can I circumvent it using 1: as "epoch" in the version number? > http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s-f-Version Not a clean way of doing it. > >> - What about the name of the Debian source packages ("hbf-cns40-1", > >> "hbf-jfs56", etc. in comparison with the new source package > >> "hbf-fonts")? > > What about it? > > Won't it give any problems if my source package "hbf-fonts" provides > "hbf-cns40-1" if there's already a Debian source package called > "hbf-cns40-1"? What do you mean "provides"? Do you mean, if the ./debian/control file says "Provides:", or if the two packages include common files? If they include common files, then you could either make the packages "Conflict:", or make your package "Replaces:" the other one, or ... > Should I put a Provdes:, Replaces: and Conflicts: field in > debian/control? If Anthony Fok is agreeable, then this might work. You should test that the upgrade ("downgrade") happens as you indend. > >> - Should I put the old packages on the "Replace:" line? Or even set > >> "Conflicts: hbf-foo1 (<=1.0.3), hbf-foo2 (<=1.0.2), etc."? > > Best to get in touch with Anthony Fok so you can coordinate it. If > > you're going to do separate and pristine source packages, then why not > > just use his? There is also the concept of "disappear"ing a package, which might be useful to you. -- Clear skies, Justin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
