Re: Restructuring roxterm packaging (was Replacing roxterm's multiple binary packages with one)

2015-07-03 Thread Tony Houghton
On 02/07/15 20:49, Vincent Cheng wrote: Hi Tony, Sorry, just saw your roxterm RFS and realized that I actually never got back to you with your latest set of questions. On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 5:49 AM, Tony Houghton wrote: That won't cause problems due to the reversed dependencies? One disadv

Re: Restructuring roxterm packaging (was Replacing roxterm's multiple binary packages with one)

2015-07-02 Thread Vincent Cheng
Hi Tony, Sorry, just saw your roxterm RFS and realized that I actually never got back to you with your latest set of questions. On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 5:49 AM, Tony Houghton wrote: > That won't cause problems due to the reversed dependencies? One disadvantage > I can foresee is that this will

Re: Restructuring roxterm packaging (was Replacing roxterm's multiple binary packages with one)

2015-06-17 Thread Tony Houghton
On 17/06/15 04:56, Vincent Cheng wrote: On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Tony Houghton wrote: What I found was that if roxterm-gtk3 is installed, but not roxterm (the old virtual package), dist-upgrade doesn't install the new roxterm package. I was expecting the 'Replaces: roxterm-gtk3' in the

Re: Restructuring roxterm packaging (was Replacing roxterm's multiple binary packages with one)

2015-06-17 Thread Tony Houghton
On 17/06/15 04:56, Vincent Cheng wrote: On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Tony Houghton wrote: > What I found was that if roxterm-gtk3 is installed, but not roxterm (the old virtual package), dist-upgrade doesn't install the new roxterm package. I was expecting the 'Replaces: roxterm-gtk3' in t

Re: Restructuring roxterm packaging (was Replacing roxterm's multiple binary packages with one)

2015-06-16 Thread Vincent Cheng
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Tony Houghton wrote: > On 15/06/15 08:19, Vincent Cheng wrote: > >> If these changes are inevitable, it's really up to you as to when you >> want to make them happen (I'd suggest that doing them early in the >> release cycle is better than later, however). I think

Re: Restructuring roxterm packaging (was Replacing roxterm's multiple binary packages with one)

2015-06-16 Thread Tony Houghton
On 15/06/15 08:19, Vincent Cheng wrote: If these changes are inevitable, it's really up to you as to when you want to make them happen (I'd suggest that doing them early in the release cycle is better than later, however). I think these changes sound fine in principle, although a debdiff would c

Re: Restructuring roxterm packaging (was Replacing roxterm's multiple binary packages with one)

2015-06-15 Thread Vincent Cheng
On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 5:44 AM, Tony Houghton wrote: > On 09/06/15 14:04, Dominique Dumont wrote: >> >> On Monday 08 June 2015 16:54:53 Tony Houghton wrote: >>> >>> roxterm-common (data files, roxterm-gtk2 and roxterm-gtk3 depend on it) >>> roxterm-gtk2, roxterm-gtk3 (binaries) >>> roxterm-gtk2-d

Restructuring roxterm packaging (was Replacing roxterm's multiple binary packages with one)

2015-06-14 Thread Tony Houghton
On 09/06/15 14:04, Dominique Dumont wrote: On Monday 08 June 2015 16:54:53 Tony Houghton wrote: roxterm-common (data files, roxterm-gtk2 and roxterm-gtk3 depend on it) roxterm-gtk2, roxterm-gtk3 (binaries) roxterm-gtk2-dbg, roxterm-gtk3-dbg (corresponding debugging symbols) roxterm (virtual pack

Re: Replacing roxterm's multiple binary packages with one

2015-06-10 Thread gregor herrmann
On Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:50:03 +0100, Tony Houghton wrote: > I suppose the relative size of the existing dbg packages makes a strong case > against including debugging symbols in the main package. If you want to get rid of the -dbg package you can probably do so without a bad conscience, since we'l

Re: Replacing roxterm's multiple binary packages with one

2015-06-10 Thread Tony Houghton
On 10/06/15 12:53, Dominique Dumont wrote: On Tuesday 09 June 2015 17:22:30 Tony Houghton wrote: Depending on its size, it may be better to keep roxterm-common: this package is arch:all and this would avoid duplication these data for each arch. IIRC I was thinking of doing that a long time ago

Re: Replacing roxterm's multiple binary packages with one

2015-06-10 Thread Dominique Dumont
On Tuesday 09 June 2015 17:22:30 Tony Houghton wrote: > > Depending on its size, it may be better to keep roxterm-common: this > > package is arch:all and this would avoid duplication these data for each > > arch. > IIRC I was thinking of doing that a long time ago (before the GTK2/3 > split) but

Re: Replacing roxterm's multiple binary packages with one

2015-06-09 Thread Tony Houghton
On 09/06/15 14:04, Dominique Dumont wrote: On Monday 08 June 2015 16:54:53 Tony Houghton wrote: roxterm-common (data files, roxterm-gtk2 and roxterm-gtk3 depend on it) roxterm-gtk2, roxterm-gtk3 (binaries) roxterm-gtk2-dbg, roxterm-gtk3-dbg (corresponding debugging symbols) roxterm (virtual pack

Re: Replacing roxterm's multiple binary packages with one

2015-06-09 Thread Dominique Dumont
On Monday 08 June 2015 16:54:53 Tony Houghton wrote: > roxterm-common (data files, roxterm-gtk2 and roxterm-gtk3 depend on it) > roxterm-gtk2, roxterm-gtk3 (binaries) > roxterm-gtk2-dbg, roxterm-gtk3-dbg (corresponding debugging symbols) > roxterm (virtual package depending on roxterm-gtk3) > > I

Replacing roxterm's multiple binary packages with one

2015-06-08 Thread Tony Houghton
I've decided to discontinue support for legacy libraries in roxterm and concentrate on GTK3 and vte-2.91 and I want to simplify the packaging because of this. The current/old version has these binary packages: roxterm-common (data files, roxterm-gtk2 and roxterm-gtk3 depend on it) roxterm-gtk2,