[pkg-fso-maint] fso-config-gta02 is ready!

Luca Capello luca at pca.it
Fri Oct 10 09:33:06 UTC 2008


Hi Joachim!

On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 09:35:03 +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> Am Freitag, den 10.10.2008, 01:33 +0200 schrieb Luca Capello:
>> > +++ b/debian/control
>> [...]
>> > +Package: fso-config-gta02
>> > +Architecture: all
>> > +Depends: ${shlibs:Depends}, ${misc:Depends}, fso-frameworkd (>= 0.2.0-git20080909-7)
>> > +Conflicts: fso-frameworkd (<< 0.2.0-git20080909-6)
>> 
>> This is my first time with a versioned conflict/dependency, so I'm not
>> sure how to handle it.  Can anyone confirm it's correct, please?
>
> Do you really need the conflict against the lower version when there is
> a dependency on the higher one?

I don't know, that's all.  I know how to rename a package [1], but this
specific case (i.e. splitting a package into two) is not yet in my
experience list.

> Upgrades won’t be smooth unless you handle the removal of the conffile
> in fso-frameworkd: Check in postinst whether you are upgrading from a
> version with /etc/frameworkd.conf, and if it wasn’t modified, delete
> it.  If it was modified by the user, rename it. (This is rough
> knowledge, better ask on #debian-devel).

Thank you for the having brought this issue up, I completely missed it
and then this morning during a wishful thinking (taking a shower...) I
thought about another similar problem: if we don't depends on
fso-config-gta02 (or any other virtual package), there's no easy way to
upgrade.  This because the new fso-frameworkd version won't provide
anymore the config files (in /etc and scenarios).  The same is true for
the sound package which is WIP.

For the reasons already explained [2], I'd avoid a dependency and just
put a note into NEWS.Debian as well as in the debian/changelog.  The
other solution being the dependency, which can be removed later on.

Going back to /etc/frameworkd.conf, I'll ask on the debian-devel mailing
list (so it'll stay documented somewhere), but I think we need a
Pre-Depends: here, since fso-frameworkd postinst must be run *before*
fso-config-gta02 is unpacked.

> Or we don’t care too much about smooth upgrades yet, considering the
> number and knowledge of our users.

I prefer to provide smooth upgrades, since otherwise for sure someone
will complain.

Except for these important problems, is the overall package OK for you?

Thx, bye,
Gismo / Luca

Footnotes: 
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2008/06/msg00318.html
[2] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-fso-maint/2008-October/000145.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 314 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-fso-maint/attachments/20081010/fa59b84e/attachment.pgp 


More information about the pkg-fso-maint mailing list