On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 01:06:20PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 01:39:30PM +0200, Daniel Kobras wrote: > > Method B > > > Package: oldpkg > > Depends: newpkg > > Files: > > /usr/share/doc/oldpkg -> /usr/share/doc/newpkg > > (and nothing else) > > > Package: newpkg > > Replaces: oldpkg > > Provides: oldpkg > > Files: > > (...) > > /usr/share/doc/oldpkg -> /usr/share/doc/newpkg > > > Method A relies on the user or external programs like deborphan to clean > > up the dummy package. Method B gets rid of it automatically, using a > > dpkg feature, but requires an extra symlink in newpkg. > > Oooh, Method B is one I haven't seen proposed before in the context of dummy > packages. That looks far more elegant to me than the alternatives. Have > you tested that dpkg really does do the right thing here, given that the > replacing package gets installed first (since it's a dependency)?
I did that once in 2003 for dx but hit a different bug then: dpkg would try to configure oldpkg when it had disappeared already. It worked fine with a patch to dpkg that went into the sarge version, but I haven't tested it since then. I'll give it another try to be sure. Regards, Daniel. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
