On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 09:10:53AM -0400, Barry deFreese wrote: > Artur R. Czechowski wrote: > >Please provide upgrade path from libphysfs-1.0-0 to libphysfs1. > >In current setup replacing libphysfs-1.0-0 with libphysfs1 requires user's > >manual intervention. > libphysfs1 Provides libphysfs-1.0.0 and has the symlink from 1.0.so.0 to > .so.2.0.0. I tested this with several packages. What type of > intervention are you seeing?
Barry, Please consider following scenario. User had installed any paackage (let's say, balder2d), depending on libphysfs-1.0-0. So, real package libphysfs-1.0-0 is installed too. Next, libphysfs-1.0-0 disappeared and new package libphysfs1 is uploaded. Of course, it provides virtual package libphysfs-1.0-0, but relation: balder2d depends on libphysfs-1.0-0 is fullfilled - the latest one is still installed. So, package manager has no reason to replace this package with libphysfs1. We have a situation where user has installed unavailable and unmaintained package. At least unless one manually install libphysfs1. In case of serious error (let's say: security related) found in libphysfs-1.0-0 user have vulnerable package. Even if you release fixed libphysfs1 it wont be installed. Yes, there is the worst scenario I can imagine, but one can say it is able to happen. As I written in my initial bugreport there are two solution: 1) force user to automatically replace libphysfs-1.0-0 with libphysfs1 via dummy package; 2) ask maintainers of depending packages to rebuild them to pull dependency on libphysfs1 from current shlibs. As you noticed initial bug is submitted as a wishlist - there is no threat at the moment. But please consider to resolve the problem. Being in your shoes I would choose option 2 - asking maintainers to rebuild packages at their convenience. I also volunteer for submitting bugreports to proper maintainer if you agree. Regards Artur -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org