On 2017-05-15 09:56, Jon Turney wrote: > On 15/05/2017 15:30, Ken Brown wrote: >> On 5/14/2017 1:38 PM, Jon Turney wrote: >>> On 13/05/2017 20:44, Ken Brown wrote: >>>> On 5/13/2017 7:12 AM, Jon Turney wrote: >>>>> On 12/05/2017 22:02, Ken Brown wrote: >>>>>> I have a package that is going to become obsolete, but its contents >>>>>> will >>>>>> be distributed among several other packages. So I can't handle >>>>>> this by >>>>>> defining OBSOLETES in any one .cygport file. Is there a standard >>>>>> way to >>>>>> deal with this using cygport, or should I just create the necessary >>>>>> tarballs and .hint file manually? >>>>> >>>>> I think the best way to do that is to bump your package revision, >>>>> change >>>>> it's category to _obsolete, make it's contents empty, and make it >>>>> depend >>>>> on the packages which are replacing it. >>>> >>>> Yes, that was my first thought. But there's no longer a source file >>>> for >>>> the obsolete package[1], and cygport complains that SRC_URI must be >>>> defined. Maybe cygport should be patched to allow an empty SRC_URI >>>> when >>>> the category is _obsolete. Or do you see another way around this? >>> >>> I would think you can use the same SRC_URI as previously, but set >>> PKG_CONTENTS="" and PKG_IGNORE="*" ? >> >> You're right, I can do something like that. I was being overly pedantic >> in wanting SRC_URI to be "accurate". Sorry for the noise. > > You can always make an empty tarball called > texlive-collection-htmlxml-20170515.tar.xz or whatever, and use that for > SRC_URI.
[intended for cygwin-apps?] -- Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
