Hi, On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 05:48:16PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote: > * Osamu Aoki <os...@debian.org> [100726 17:27]: > > ============================================================================= > > Case 2: package transition rule > > All the contents of the package foo is incorporated by bar in new 1.0 > > version and foo 1.0 became a transitional package with no real contents > > which can be removed safely. Please note pre-1.0 version of foo was not > > a transitional package. > > > > | Package: foo > > | Version: 1.0 > > | Description: ... > > | This is a transitional package for foo, and can be safely removed > > | after the installation is complete. > > > > | Package: bar > > | Version: 1.0 > > | Breaks: foo ( << 1.0 ) > > | Replaces: foo ( << 1.0 ) > > | Provides: foo > > Here the provide has advantages and disadvantages. I'd not suggest to > use it unconditionally here (and even recommend against it in the > usual cases).
This is good point. Unless some package depends on old package which is now a transitional package, it is uselss. > Also note that moving package foo to "oldlibs" makes it easier for > people to remove such packages. For my case, this is not applicable but very informative point. > > ============================================================================= > > Case 2': package transition rule > > After stable release with case 2, you wish to remove the transitional > > package foo upon upgrade to unstable/testing/next-stable. I guess we do > > not package "Package: foo" at this moment when uploading. > > > | Provides: foo > > I'd recommend against using recommend here unless in very special cases. > An additional provides means more work for each dependency resolver. > And after stable released with no real package with that name, there > should no longer be any need for it. I see. > > Do we do ... > > | Package: bar > > | Version: 1.0 > > | Conflicts: foo ( << 1.0 ) > > | Replaces: foo ( << 1.0 ) > > This only makes sense if you want to make life easier for backporters > to oldstable. > > > Or > > > > | Package: bar > > | Version: 1.0 > > | Conflicts: foo > > | Replaces: foo > > That means foo is to be removed. This means hard decisions for the > resolver (hopefully it will decide to keep bar and remove foo, and > not remove both). OK. > > Question: Is there sure way to purge the old transitional package foo? > > Why do you want to make sure to remove it? It does not cause harm, is > easy to find and remove. And it might be the only thing keeping bar > from being removed as a no longer needed dependency. Good point. I was thinking xpdf. It was going through package split. xpdf -> xpdf-common, xpdf-reader, xpdf-utils It carried so many of conflicts/replaces/provides. Recent package change removed xpdf-utils functionality and that part is not packaged. I was going to clean these up. With comments by Russ and Bernhard, I have better understanding. Thanks. Osamu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100728124153.gb3...@debian.org
