David Kalnischkies <kalnischkies+deb...@gmail.com> writes: > 2010/5/28 Stephen Leake <stephen_le...@stephe-leake.org>: >> Ludovic Brenta <ludo...@ludovic-brenta.org> writes: >> >>> Stephen Leake wrote: >>>> Ludovic Brenta <ludo...@ludovic-brenta.org> writes: >>>>> The reason for all this is that when a package libX2-dev Conflicts: >>> with >>>>> and Replaces: a package libX1-dev, aptitude does not remove libX1-dev >>>>> and install libX2-dev; instead, it marks libX1-dev as broken and leaves >>>>> libX2-dev uninstalled. >>>> >>>> This seems like a clear bug in aptitude. > > The name libX1-dev suggests that it can be co-installed with libX2-dev and co > as otherwise the version number wouldn't make much sense > (yeah i know, in a few other cases… i said not much) - > automatic updates in which libX1-dev is killed for good by libX2-dev > is absolutely not what i would expect as packages will (build-)depend > on libX1-dev which obviously can not be satisfied by libX2-dev -- if > it could it would be called libX1-dev also or even libX-dev and only > the real library is called libX2 …
Yes, that is all true. It is also required by the rules of the Ada language. Please read the Debian Ada policy [1] (in particular, section 3.2) for an explanation of this naming convention. > This is normally done for Package renames and described in e.g. > http://wiki.debian.org/Renaming_a_Package That is an excellent suggestion; I'll try it. > So i would recommend to describe more what you actually want and > your specific problem That was done by Ludovic's original post in this thread. [1] http://people.debian.org/~lbrenta/debian-ada-policy.html -- -- Stephe -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/827hmmsrp6....@stephe-leake.org
