* Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-01-28 17:29]: > The octave3.0 package in unstable has the following provides line: > > Provides: octave, octave2.9 > > I don't see any possible way that this can be correct. Either octave3.0 is > 100% compatible with octave2.9, and the source/binary package name should > *not* have been changed for the new upstream version; or it is not 100% > compatible, and should not have any such Provides since it may cause > octave2.9 reverse-dependencies to install octave3.0 instead of the real > octave2.9 and then fail to work. > > In practice, most of the reverse-depends of octave2.9 have versioned > dependencies on octave2.9, so most of these will refuse to accept octave3.0 > as a replacement. And octave3.0 also *conflicts* with octave2.9, so they're > not exactly co-installable either. Something looks very wrong here.
I am revisiting this issue now and need some advice from you. The goal of having octave3.0 conflicting/replacing/providing octave2.9 is to ensure that users having octave2.9 installed will be upgraded to octave3.0. This is correct from the upstream point of view, because the 2.9.* series of Octave were considered as pre-releases of Octave 3.0.0 (I know, I know, we should have used octave3.0 as the source package name to start with...) Now, would just conflicts/replaces achieve that goal? I still agree with you that the Provides line is wrong, for the reasons you mention above. I hope everything will settle down when octave2.9 will be dropped from Debian and all the reverse-dependencies will be adjusted accordingly (which is almost the case right now). -- Rafael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
