Daniel Kobras writes ("Re: Renaming a package"):
> On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 02:15:06PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I don't think it this patch is correct as is, but something similar
> > might not be unreasonable if it had to be turned on with a command
> &
man, 29,.05.2006 kl. 22.00 +0200, skrev Frank Küster:
> martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sounds like a clean approach, but is there a clean transition?
> > I doubt you can upload a source package that generates the same
> > binary package as another source package.
> Oh, you can. Unt
Daniel Kobras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 02:15:06PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> Daniel Kobras writes ("Re: Renaming a package"):
>> > but the alternative patch to dpkg is quite simple (see
>> > below). Alas, it changes curr
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 02:15:06PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Daniel Kobras writes ("Re: Renaming a package"):
> > but the alternative patch to dpkg is quite simple (see
> > below). Alas, it changes current behaviour.
>
> I don't think it this patch is
Daniel Kobras writes ("Re: Renaming a package"):
> but the alternative patch to dpkg is quite simple (see
> below). Alas, it changes current behaviour.
I don't think it this patch is correct as is, but something similar
might not be unreasonable if it had to be turned o
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 11:42:30PM +0200, Vincent Danjean wrote:
> Daniel Kobras wrote:
>
> > Method B
> >
> > Package: oldpkg
> > Depends: newpkg
> > Files:
> > /usr/share/doc/oldpkg -> /usr/share/doc/newpkg
> > (and nothing else)
>
> Does not this hit another bug in dpkg ?
>
> I
Daniel Kobras wrote:
> Method B
>
> Package: oldpkg
> Depends: newpkg
> Files:
> /usr/share/doc/oldpkg -> /usr/share/doc/newpkg
> (and nothing else)
Does not this hit another bug in dpkg ?
It seems that empty old directories cannot be replaced by a
symlink without special pre/post
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Andreas Fester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
>> Thats how I understand this approach. Since lincvs only contains the
>> /usr/share/doc/lincvs -> crossvc link, and crossvc also contains the
>> same link, the link will b
Andreas Fester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Daniel Kobras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [...]
Unpacking replacement lincvs ...
Selecting previously deselected package crossvc.
Unpacking crossvc (from .../crossvc_1.5.0-1_i386.deb) ...
(Noting disa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Daniel Kobras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
>>> Unpacking replacement lincvs ...
>>> Selecting previously deselected package crossvc.
>>> Unpacking crossvc (from .../crossvc_1.5.0-1_i386.deb) ...
>>> (Noting disappeara
Daniel Kobras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 09:19:42AM +0200, Andreas Fester wrote:
>> Absolutely. Its also the method I would prefer because it adds minimal
>> overhead providing the most seamless upgrade. I implemented it for my
>> package, and the first test succeeded ve
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Steve Langasek wrote:
[...]
>> Anyway, as noted in my previous mail to this thread, when testing this
>> method on unstable and sarge, I hit a bug in apt that rules it out for
>> etch. If you still like this method, we can get the necessary fixes in
>>
On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 03:05:08PM +0200, Daniel Kobras wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 11:46:12PM +0200, Daniel Kobras wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 01:06:20PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > Oooh, Method B is one I haven't seen proposed before in the context of
> > > dummy
> > > package
On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 11:46:12PM +0200, Daniel Kobras wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 01:06:20PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > 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 tes
On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 09:19:42AM +0200, Andreas Fester wrote:
> Absolutely. Its also the method I would prefer because it adds minimal
> overhead providing the most seamless upgrade. I implemented it for my
> package, and the first test succeeded very well (amd64 testing/unstable),
> but today I
Hi Daniel,
[...]
> 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
thats also my experience with current dpkg unstable. See my reply in
the this thread some postings above. The strange thing is that
[...]
>> 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/newp
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)
>
> > Packag
On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 01:39:30PM +0200, Daniel Kobras wrote:
> On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 11:52:53AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > > I've heard this stated before, but if it was ever true, it's definitely
> > > > not
> > > > the case with apt (or with britney), and it's not mentioned in policy
Daniel Kobras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steve wondered why people suggest package relationships that cause
> problems during upgrades. I claimed that policy may well be the source
> of the confusion. The fact that you can read different meanings into it
> isn't quite the point. Well, actually i
On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 03:15:02PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> Daniel Kobras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 11:52:53AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >> It explains Replaces+Conflicts. It does *not* say "create a dummy package
> >> that can't be installed because it depend
Daniel Kobras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 11:52:53AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>>
>> > > > >>Package: oldpkg
>> > > > >>Depends: newpkg
>> > > > >>Description: transitional dummy package
>>
>> > > > >>Package: newpkg
>> > > > >>Replaces: oldpkg
>> > > > >>Conflicts: o
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 11:52:53AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 02:05:13PM +0200, Daniel Kobras wrote:
> > On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 04:12:31PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 11:22:51AM +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
> > > > Steve Langasek schrieb:
>
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 02:05:13PM +0200, Daniel Kobras wrote:
>> On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 04:12:31PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> > On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 11:22:51AM +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
>> > > Steve Langasek schrieb:
>> > > >>Package: oldpkg
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 02:05:13PM +0200, Daniel Kobras wrote:
> On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 04:12:31PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 11:22:51AM +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
> > > Steve Langasek schrieb:
> > > >>Package: oldpkg
> > > >>Depends: newpkg
> > > >>Description: tran
Daniel Kobras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 04:12:31PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 11:22:51AM +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
>> > Steve Langasek schrieb:
>> > >>Package: oldpkg
>> > >>Depends: newpkg
>> > >>Description: transitional dummy package
>>
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 04:12:31PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 11:22:51AM +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
> > Steve Langasek schrieb:
> > >>Package: oldpkg
> > >>Depends: newpkg
> > >>Description: transitional dummy package
>
> > >>Package: newpkg
> > >>Replaces: oldpkg
> >
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 04:12:31PM -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > Hm, that used to be a "magic" combination that would let dpkg do the
> > right thing.
>
> I've heard this stated before, but if it was ever true, it's definitely not
> the case with apt (or with britney), and
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 11:22:51AM +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
> Steve Langasek schrieb:
> >>Package: oldpkg
> >>Depends: newpkg
> >>Description: transitional dummy package
> >>Package: newpkg
> >>Replaces: oldpkg
> >>Conflicts: oldpkg
> >>Description: ...
> >*NO* *NO* *NO* *NO* *NO*. Look clo
* Andreas Fester [Tue, 30 May 2006 21:42:27 +0200]:
> One last question: would it be safe to say
> Architecture: all
> in the dummy transition package since it does not contain
> any architecture specific files anymore, or is it better to
> leave it as it is with "Architecture: any" to create
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thanks for all your answers, my package successfully transformed
to its new name with apt-get dist-upgrade in my test environment :-)
One last question: would it be safe to say
Architecture: all
in the dummy transition package since it does not cont
Simon Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> Andreas Fester schrieb:
>
>> I create a new package with the new name which will
>> get uploaded to the NEW queue. This package replaces the
>> old package and conflicts with the old package:
>> Replaces: oldPackage
>> Conflicts: oldPackage (<< f
Hi
On Tue, 30 May 2006 11:22:51 +0200
Simon Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Steve Langasek schrieb:
>
> >>Package: oldpkg
> >>Depends: newpkg
> >>Description: transitional dummy package
> >
> >>Package: newpkg
> >>Replaces: oldpkg
> >>Conflicts: oldpkg
> >>Description: ...
>
> >
Hi,
Steve Langasek schrieb:
Package: oldpkg
Depends: newpkg
Description: transitional dummy package
Package: newpkg
Replaces: oldpkg
Conflicts: oldpkg
Description: ...
*NO* *NO* *NO* *NO* *NO*. Look closely at the package relationships you've
specified. Why would you upload a package to
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 10:23:44AM +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
> Andreas Fester schrieb:
> >I create a new package with the new name which will
> >get uploaded to the NEW queue. This package replaces the
> >old package and conflicts with the old package:
> >Replaces: oldPackage
> >Conflicts: oldP
Hi,
Andreas Fester schrieb:
I create a new package with the new name which will
get uploaded to the NEW queue. This package replaces the
old package and conflicts with the old package:
Replaces: oldPackage
Conflicts: oldPackage (<< firstVersionOfNewPackage)
IIRC the correct way to do that is
martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> also sprach Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.05.29.2122 +0200]:
>> I think the usual way is to provide the dummy binary package
>> immediately from the new source package and file a bug for removal
>> of the old source package.
>
> Sounds like
martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> also sprach Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.05.29.2122 +0200]:
>> I think the usual way is to provide the dummy binary package
>> immediately from the new source package and file a bug for removal
>> of the old source package.
>
> Sounds like
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Andreas Fester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.05.29.2114 +0200]:
>> Replaces: oldPackage
>> Conflicts: oldPackage (<< firstVersionOfNewPackage)
>
> Also: Provides: oldPackage, so that it can still satisfy
> (non-version
martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> also sprach Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.05.29.2122 +0200]:
>> I think the usual way is to provide the dummy binary package
>> immediately from the new source package and file a bug for removal
>> of the old source package.
> Sounds like a
On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 09:26:41PM +0200, martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> also sprach Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.05.29.2122 +0200]:
> > I think the usual way is to provide the dummy binary package
> > immediately from the new source package and file a bug for removal
>
* martin f krafft [Mon, 29 May 2006 21:26:41 +0200]:
> I doubt you can upload a source package that generates the same
> binary package as another source package.
You definitely can, and TTBOMK it does not even need NEW if the source
package that starts shipping it already existed.
--
Adeodato
also sprach Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.05.29.2122 +0200]:
> I think the usual way is to provide the dummy binary package
> immediately from the new source package and file a bug for removal
> of the old source package.
Sounds like a clean approach, but is there a clean transition?
I
also sprach Andreas Fester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.05.29.2114 +0200]:
> Replaces: oldPackage
> Conflicts: oldPackage (<< firstVersionOfNewPackage)
Also: Provides: oldPackage, so that it can still satisfy
(non-versioned) dependencies.
But yeah, seems like the right way to do things.
--
Please
Andreas Fester wrote:
> Is this the correct approach? Anything I missed?
I think the usual way is to provide the dummy binary package immediately
from the new source package and file a bug for removal of the old source
package.
Kind regards
T.
--
Thomas Viehmann, http://thomas.viehmann.net/
-
45 matches
Mail list logo
