On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 09:06:36AM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote: > The current libfam0 provides the previous libfam0c102, presumably > because libfam is a C++ lib but only exports a C interface, so the > transition for GCC 4 was unnecessary.
Yes. > However, the libfam0c102 in sarge provides libfam0. This means that > that package completely satisfies any package in etch that depends on > libfam0 (with the exception of those that have a versioned dependency > on libfam0, like libfam-dev). The consequence is that an "apt-get > dist-upgrade" or equivalent will *not* install libfam0 but will keep > libfam0c102 around instead. If I understand things correctly, the dist-upgrade behavior will happen regardless of whether libfam0 provides libfam0c102 or not. Is that observation correct? So what would happen if (suppose) we do need the g++-4.0 transition and libfam0 does not provide libfam0c102? > This is an exceedingly odd situation. The only solution that seems > satisfactory to me is to go back to the sarge-style packaging, meaning > kill the libfam0 package and re-introduce libfam0c102. The situation is indeed pretty odd. Suppose we kill libfam0 and then re-introduce libfam0c102. What would happen to those people that has libfam0 2.7.0-8 installed on their system? -- Chuan-kai Lin http://www.cs.pdx.edu/~cklin/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
