Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 02:23:53PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 08:29:29PM +0100, Artur R. Czechowski wrote:
> [...]
>> > 1. I left package with 1.3.1 version with names: t1lib1, t1lib-dev,
>> > t1lib-doc, t1lib1-bin. Version 5.0.0 is uploaded with names: libt1-5,
>> > libt1-dev, libt1-doc, t1lib-bin.
>> > 2. Dependant packages are modified and recompiled to use v5.0.0
>> > 3. 1.3.1 is removed, we left with libt1-5, libt1-dev, libt1-doc and
>> > t1lib-bin, for users convenience empty t1lib-dev and t1lib-doc with
>> > dependencies only will be added.
> [...]
>> 2. Package t1lib 5.0.0 as source package t1lib, providing libt1-5,
>> libt1-dev, libt1-doc, and libt1-bin (or t1lib-bin -- Policy doesn't
>> suggest that you name this last item one way or the other).
> [...]
>> That's one way to go about this that should not require any
>> pseudopackages.
> Sorry, I oversold my proposal with that last statement.
> Under my proposal you wouldn't need a pseudopackage for t1lib1, but you
> would for:
> t1lib-dev (Depends: libt1-dev)
> t1lib-doc (Depends: libt1-doc)
[...]
As t1lib-dev (1.3.1) and libt1-dev (5.0.0) are not API compatible I'd
consider that a pseudo-package useless or even unwelcome. (You try to
compile sarge sources on sid in 12 months, all your build-dependencies
are installed, as you have got the t1lib-dev pseudopackage, however
the software won't compile, as it does not support the 5.0.0 API.)
cu andreas
--
Hey, da ist ein Ballonautomat auf der Toilette!
Unofficial _Debian-packages_ of latest unstable _tin_
http://www.logic.univie.ac.at/~ametzler/debian/tin-snapshot/
