On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 05:30:49PM +0100, Florian Ernst wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 11:48:47AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > This is a reminder for myself to edit debian/control for the next
> > upload. I intend to Provide: sextractor-doc such that users of
> > previous sextractor packages (by me, with -doc package split by
> > Florian) will have that package removed (it is obsoleted by this
> > package). A separate -doc package is still a consideration, though.
>
> Well, I started to split out a separate -doc package in 2.3.2-1, but
> according to my webserver logs not even a single person has ever
> downloaded those, and soon thereafter I dropped my ITP and sextractor
> was completely removed from Debian (bug#204464).
I downloaded them; I think you made them available to me after taking
down the original packages. I still have your diff, thats how I got
the changelog entries.
> > Florian, can you confirm that Provide will do what I want? I know
> > Replaces+Provides+Conflicts is a thing specially interpretted by dpkg.
> > But I don't need the Conflict or Replaces (though I could use them
> > anyway, if necessary to have the effect). It seems that Provide:
> > sextractor-doc will do the right thing, since ${Source-Version} will
> > be greater than the previous version, and will cause an upgrade.
> > Right?
>
> All in all, Debian has never shipped split packages. I don't know how
> widespread use your packages have had, but they weren't split as well
> (or were they?), so I guess there is no problem we have to solve.
They were split. Its not a huge problem of course, but might as well
solve it ..
> However, if you wish to make sure any sextractor-doc packages that
> might have been installed get replaced for now you'll have to set the
> triplet as mentioned above or in "7.5.2 Replacing whole packages" at
> <http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#s7.5.2>.
Okay.
> It might still be worth a though or two on whether a -doc package
> should be split out in the future, though, but as you mention above
> this is still consideration...
Yea, its a balance between more disk space (~1MB * ~15 archs) vs the
additional overhead of a binary package; I think I remember Joerg
talking about this.
--
Clear skies,
Justin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
