Re: Bug#55811: dist upgrade didn't mention that fvwm2 was superseded by fvwm.
I was going to upload a version with Provides: fvwm2, but if that's
not going to work, please could somebody look at doing an NMU for me?
I'm going to be away till about 25 February, and don't have time to do
anything complex like this before I go. 8-(
Julian
On Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 10:45:05PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 12:31:06AM +0000, Jules Bean wrote:
> > > > I upgraded to fvwm version 2 ages ago, and had removed the fvwm
> > > > package and only used fvwm2.
> > > > This meant that at upgrade time, fvwm2 wasn't upgraded, and fvwm
> > > > didn't appear.
> > >
> > > This is really difficult, primarily because the fvwm2 package doesn't
> > > exist any longer. The new fvwm package Conflicts and Replaces fvwm2,
> > > so I would have hoped that it would appear somehow. I don't know
> > > where to send this bug.
> >
> > Don't you also need 'Provides:'? Or did I hallucinate that?
>
> That depends on the number and type of packages that had/have dependencies
> on the old package, and the type of the old package. Usually, it's pointless
> for all packages except libraries whose shlibs didn't contain versions.
>
> > Or is the trick, to provide a dummy fvwm2 package which Depends: on fvwm?
>
> Yes, that would work, and make the Depends: a versioned one.
>
> Also, tell the user (in Description: of fvwm2 dummy) to remove or purge the
> dummy package after installation of new fvwm. (if the old fvwm2 had
> registered conffiles, don't purge it, otherwise they'll be gone, IIRC xbase
> had a similar problem).
>
> --
> enJoy -*/\*- don't even try to pronounce my first name
>
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, QMW, Univ. of London. J.D.Gilbey@qmw.ac.uk
Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://www.debian.org/~jdg
Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/
Reply to: