--
Stephane Crivisier
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 2:43 AM, Rob Browning <r...@defaultvalue.org>
wrote:
> Recently I've been fixing some non-trivial problems I introduced in
> emacsen-common 2.0.0 -- and to finish fixing them it looks like it may
> be best to change (and augment) some of the add-on package requirements.
> Originally, I'd really tried to make it so that as of emacsen-common
> 2.*, add-on packages didn't have to depend on *anything*, but that's
> proving difficult to unworkable, so I'm leaning toward adding a
> requirement that add-on packages depend on "emacsen-common >= 2.0.8".
> If it helps, emacsen-common is only about 140k installed.
> Here's what I have so far from the hypothetical 2.0.8 changelog:
> Require add-on packages to depend on emacsen-common >= 2.0.8.
>
> This should be simpler and safer, and emacsen-common is only ~140k,
> which shouldn't be too big a burden. One specific problem this solves
> is the handling of /var/lib/emacsen-common -- in particular
> /var/lib/emacsen-common/state/package/installed/* if/when
> emacsen-common is purged. Without the dependency, emacsen-common
> can't remove the tree without clobbering the state for every add-on,
> but if emacsen-common can't remove it, who can?
>
> It seems better to add this requirement for now (which should also
> simplify the emacsen infrastructure in general), than to have every
> add-on try to decide when it's safe to remove
> /var/lib/emacsen-common/state/package (i.e. when they're the last
> add-on being removed from the system).
>
> This release changes the following requirements for add-on packages
> (see debian-emacs-policy for the details):
>
> - They must now depend on emacsen-common >= 2.0.8.
> - They don't need to conflict with emacsen-common anymore.
> - They don't need to guard their calls to emacs-install-package.
> - They don't need to guard their calls to emacs-remove-package.
> - They should no longer manage their package/installed/ file directly.
>
> In addition emacsen flavor packages should now depend on
> emacsen-common >= 2.0.8.
> Thoughts? Strong objections?
> (And for whatever it's worth, I've been posting some relevant bits to
> debian-emac...@lists.debian.org lately, but I imagined that many/most
> of you aren't subscribed.)
> Thanks
> --
> Rob Browning
> rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org
> GPG as of 2011-07-10 E6A9 DA3C C9FD 1FF8 C676 D2C4 C0F0 39E9 ED1B 597A
> GPG as of 2002-11-03 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592 F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4
_______________________________________________
pkg-common-lisp-devel mailing list
pkg-common-lisp-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-common-lisp-devel
