On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 05:34:30AM -0700, Joshua Kwan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: > I recently installed the latest msttcorefonts, which is now a dummy > package for the new name ttf-msttcorefonts-installer. I had previously > installed msttcorefonts manually. > > Since msttcorefonts is now a dummy package, I removed it from my system. > But because ttf-msttcorefonts-installer was installed as a dependency of > msttcorefonts, apt now suggests it for autoremoval. I think this > behavior is highly misleading. > > A potential solution would involve a package control field indicating > the status of msttcorefonts as a dummy package for > ttf-msttcorefonts-installer. That way, the "manually installed" state, > true or false, could propagate to the new package. > > Obviously, this will happen consistently in the very common case of > all dummy packages being used in Debian. > > Thoughts?
Personally, I think the occasionally-discussed "Obsoletes" header would be a better approach, if we wanted to add a new header. This would sort of function as a reverse dependency -- if A Obsoletes B and you have B installed, an "upgrade" or "install" operation on B should install A (and of course copy the automatic flag over). I don't remember why this hasn't been implemented -- was it just that no-one got around to it or were there practical problems (other than the fact that my summary above is underspecified)? I don't think dpkg needs to care about this header since it's something that's only interesting for whole-system upgrades. Daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
