retitle 542149 dpkg: please change pre-dependency to lzma | xz-lzma thanks Hi,
Guillem Jover wrote: > Switching the support from lzma to xz has been on my radar for some > time, but given that the tools and library in unstable didn't seem to > be ready, and the ones which seemed to were in experimental, I had not > yet looked into writting the code. Hmm, similar here. I’ll try to get a patch to make dpkg use liblzma ready for review some time this week and send it to bug #542160. I’ve thought a bit more about this particular bug (bug #542149), which was making xz-utils in experimental uninstallable [1] (That is because xz-lzma conflicted with lzma, but the right fix is to use alternatives to make them no longer conflict. With that change, xz-lzma installs okay. [2] The remaining problem is that even with xz-lzma installed, lzma cannot be removed, since Provides: are not strong enough to satisfy a pre-dependency. Does the xz-lzma package mentioned in [2] satisfy dpkg’s current lzma pre-dependency? If so, would it be a good idea to change dpkg’s Pre-depends: to “lzma | xz-lzma”? Thanks, Jonathan [1] Bug #542060, “xz-utils - Conflicts with pseudo-essential package”, <http://bugs.debian.org/542060> [2] If you’d like to look at the fix, see <git://git.debian.org/collab-maint/lzma.git> branch “alternates” and <git://git.debian.org/collab-maint/xz.git> branch “master”. To try it out, see the APT repo <http://collab-maint.alioth.debian.org/xz-utils/debian>. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
