Bug#602050: ITP: supercollider -- A real time audio synthesis programming language

[Felipe Sateler]

On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 09:04, Dan S <danstowell+debmm at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2011/5/15 Felipe Sateler <fsateler at debian.org>:
>> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 06:07, Dan S <danstowell+debmm at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 2011/5/11 Felipe Sateler <fsateler at debian.org>:
>>>> Hi, sorry for taking so long.
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 15:57, Dan S <danstowell+debmm at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 2011/4/16 Felipe Sateler <fsateler at debian.org>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> - I would really like to fold all the -dev packages into one. I don't
>>>>>> see much point in splitting them.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've discussed it with the upstream devs and we're OK with merging
>>>>> them, so I've done that.
>>>>
>>>> Good. However, the relationship with thte old packages is wrong. It
>>>> should Replace the older packages.
>>>
>>> Ah right, thanks.
>>>
>>>> However, I'm not quite sure if we
>>>> should apply policy 7.6.1 or 7.6.2 (ie, Replaces+Breaks or
>>>> Replaces+Conflicts+Provides).
>>>>
>>>> What do others think?
>>>
>>> In lieu of any other responses (so far), the latter
>>> (Replaces+Conflicts+Provides) seems to me to have the better
>>> semantics, although we're not talking about virtual packages (which
>>> policy 7.5 is pretty specific about). From reading the guide I can't
>>> decide either; unless anyone can advise, maybe we should go for
>>> Replaces+Breaks.
>>
>> Upon further reading, I think we should use
>> conflicts+replaces+provides, because we are replacing whole packages.
>
> OK, done.

I probably won't be able to dedicate much time to this during this
week, so if anyone else can have a look at this package and comment on
it, I'd appreciate it. I'd like to have more eyeballs looking at it
since it is not a trivial package and I could have missed some things.

-- 

Saludos,
Felipe Sateler