I've done more analysis and experimentation with the vips rename, and
I'd like to stick to my original plan of uploading a new source
package that creates new binary packages followed by creating dummy
packages out of the old source package followed eventually by
requesting removal of the old pack
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 12:42:41PM -0500, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
> Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 03:53:58PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> >> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, Anthony Towns wrote:
> >> > We really need to get dpkg/apt and dselect/aptitude working as designed
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 03:53:58PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> > We really need to get dpkg/apt and dselect/aptitude working as designed.
>> > Not supporting auto-selecting packages like this, in spite of
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 03:53:58PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > We really need to get dpkg/apt and dselect/aptitude working as designed.
> > Not supporting auto-selecting packages like this, in spite of it
> > having been documented for years, is jus
Anthony Towns wrote:
> Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
>> The recent threads on sonames and package names convinced me beyond a
>> doubt that I made a mistake in the names of the vips packages.
>
> Oh dear...
>
>> [...] Right now, the vips7.10 source package creates four binary
>> packages: libvips7.10, li
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> > Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > The point is not about "needing" dummy packages or not.
> >
> > Well, yes it is -- they're not there for their own sake, they're there
> > to ensure upgrades happen smoothly and automatically. If they're not
> > *necessary
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Santiago Vila wrote:
> > The point is not about "needing" dummy packages or not.
>
> Well, yes it is -- they're not there for their own sake, they're there
> to ensure upgrades happen smoothly and automatically. If they're not
> *necessary* for that, the
Santiago Vila wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005, Anthony Towns wrote:
Each package Conflicts with the package it
replaces with a version << the future dummy transition version of the
existing packages and Replaces the old package as well. For example:
I'm fairly sure the above should ensure you don't nee
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005, Anthony Towns wrote:
> libvips-tools and libvips-doc likewise can probably lose their
> version happily, presuming people who Depend: on libvips-dev today,
> and end up getting the tools from soname 11 aren't going to be
> unhappy. But for both of those you should be able to j
Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
The recent threads on sonames and package names convinced me beyond a
doubt that I made a mistake in the names of the vips packages.
Oh dear...
[...] Right now, the vips7.10 source package creates four binary
packages: libvips7.10, libvips7.10-dev, libvips7.10-tools, and
libvi
Executive summary: I'm planning on renaming the vips7.10 packages to
get the "7.10" out of the package name unless someone tells me that I
shouldn't. I've discussed this on debian-mentors already. Read on
for the copious details.
-
The recent threads on sonames and
11 matches
Mail list logo
