Hi Thomas, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> I don't want that it's possible to have them both at the same time. Once > again, my package1 and package2 are the same, only dependencies are not. > So can I write: > > Package: package1 > Conflicts: package2 > Replaces: package2 > [...] > Package: package2 > Conflicts: package1 > Replaces: package1 > Provides: package1 That should work quite well. If any third-party packages want to depend on either of your packages, they would just have to do "Depends: package1" and that should pull in package1 if it isn't already installed. If package2 is already installed, the dependencies would already be satisfied. Presumably you've decided most people would rather have package1 than package2? One word of caution: Note that if a third-party package wanted to declare a *versioned* dependency on package1, it would always pull in package1 (causing package2 to be uninstalled if it was present). This is because virtual packages cannot satisfy versioned dependencies. By the way, therefore if a third-party package explicitly wanted package1 and not package2, it could do "Depends: package1 (>> 0)" to force installation of package1. Finally, if package1 and package2 contain a lot of files that not only are installed at the same path/filename but also are identical, you might want to instead stick those into a third binary package "package1-common" and have both package1 and package2 Depend upon that. That would save disk space on the Debian mirrors, and also save bandwidth for people who install package1 and then later change their minds and want package2 instead (or vice versa). best regards, -- Kevin B. McCarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Physics Department WWW: http://www.princeton.edu/~kmccarty/ Princeton University GPG: public key ID 4F83C751 Princeton, NJ 08544 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
