On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 09:42:28PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > 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?
>
> Same problem, but confined to unstable. I think this is the best
> solution, though, as sid users should be well accustomed to dealing with
> obsoleted packages on their system.
>
> The other option would probably be to keep the package name as libfam0
> in etch, but cause the shlibs to declare a versioned dependency on
> libfam0 (>> $some_value), since this dependency won't be satisfied by a
> Provides:.
How about making the fam source package provide both libfam0c102 and
libfam0, with the former as a transitional dummy package to the latter?
libfam0c102
Depends: libfam0 (=${Source-Version})
libfam0
Provides: libfam0c102
--
Chuan-kai Lin
http://www.cs.pdx.edu/~cklin/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
