On Thu, 27 Nov 1997, Bdale Garbee wrote:
[snip]
> Did you not read Christian's explanation of the versioning of the
> dependencies? I think that completely satisfies your concern.
>
> Frankly, I don't personally understand why Christian proposes that the KDE
> flavors of the package include "Provides:" for the non-KDE flavor package
> names. I can't see any reason for this (a simple conflict should suffice, I
> think), and it's the root of the problem you're identifying, right?
You may be right. I thought I had to use some "Provides:" since there
might be other Debian packages depending on some KDE stuff in the future.
However, since Andreas just told us that his and KDE's packages can't be
mixed at all (otherwise we didn't had to use Conflicts, of course) we
could probably just drop the "Provides:" which makes everything even more
simple: Then, each non-Debian KDE package can "Conflict:" with _every_
Debian KDE package (which didn't work with the "Provides" we had before).
This would make mixing the packages even harder, since with a Conflict
dpkg doesn't even consider unpacking the package. (When you Depend on a
package which is not installed, dpkg unpacks the first package and aborts
later.)
Andreas, would dropping the Provides from my previous solution solve your
problems?
Thanks,
Chris
-- _,, Christian Schwarz
/ o \__ [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
! ___; [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
\ /
\\\______/ ! PGP-fp: 8F 61 EB 6D CF 23 CA D7 34 05 14 5C C8 DC 22 BA
\ / http://fatman.mathematik.tu-muenchen.de/~schwarz/
-.-.,---,-,-..---,-,-.,----.-.-
"DIE ENTE BLEIBT DRAUSSEN!"
