Re: APT 0.1.6 is released!
Dale Scheetz writes: You can't ever remove A. Systems pre-split must always be upgradable to systems after the split. They would still be upgradable: they'd just revert to what I understand to be the present behavior: A vanishes. But, ok. Doesn't necessarily mean that this isn't a workable idea, just that it will always have this baggage. Doesn't seem like very objectionable baggage. The packages would have descriptions that makes it clear what they are, and there would never be very many. When I think about it more, I guess I would want to keep them around. B and C were together in A because someone once thought they belonged together. It is likely that others will think similarly, or just remember 'A' from bo and go looking for it in emperor. This scheme gives them what they expect. Think of these as a type of 'superpackage'. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI
Re: APT 0.1.6 is released!
I think you need to install the new nfs-server package. Yeah, I got bit by that too, and it took me a while to find that... maybe we need some sort of transitional-recommends field? Something that is ignored if you are installing the package (to avoid causing even more pain to dselect users, or something), but noticed on an upgrade? (obviously it need more subtlety than that, but this might be a more useful distinction than we've had before for splitting packages...) [it is *possible* that nfs-server wasn't even on the mirrors, maybe because it was new, when the netstd or netbase or whatever used to have it, dropped it; oh well, that's what unstable is all about...]
Re: APT 0.1.6 is released!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark W. Eichin) wrote: Yeah, I got bit by that too, and it took me a while to find that... maybe we need some sort of transitional-recommends field? Something that is ignored if you are installing the package (to avoid causing even more pain to dselect users, or something), but noticed on an upgrade? (obviously it need more subtlety than that, but this might be a more useful distinction than we've had before for splitting packages...) Package splitting has always been a problem with Debian. I would suggest a different solution, namely an upgrades field included in the new packages. The idea is that if package A is split into packages B and C, both B and C should include a field upgrades: A in their control file. That way the upgrade procedure would now that in order to upgrade A, both B and C must be installed. I think this idea works for package splitting as well as for package renaming, or combinations of them both. Comments? M. S. Martin A. Soto J. Profesor Departamento de Ingenieria de Sistemas y Computacion Universidad de los Andes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: APT 0.1.6 is released!
Mark W. Eichin wrote: Yeah, I got bit by that too, and it took me a while to find that... maybe we need some sort of transitional-recommends field? Something that is ignored if you are installing the package (to avoid causing even more pain to dselect users, or something), but noticed on an upgrade? (obviously it need more subtlety than that, but this might be a more useful distinction than we've had before for splitting packages...) How about this? A_1.0-0.1 is going to split into B and C. So you create a dummy A_1.0-0.2 package which depends on B and C and upload it along with B and C. Anyone who upgrades and has A will get it upgraded to A_1.0-0.2, which will pull in B and C. No one else ever needs to know that A ever existed. After a release or two you remove A from the distribution. -- John HaslerThis posting is in the public domain. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do with it what you will. Dancing Horse Hill Make money from it if you can; I don't mind. Elmwood, Wisconsin Do not send email advertisements to this address.
Re: APT 0.1.6 is released!
On 7 Oct 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How about this? A_1.0-0.1 is going to split into B and C. So you create a dummy A_1.0-0.2 package which depends on B and C and upload it along with B and C. Anyone who upgrades and has A will get it upgraded to A_1.0-0.2, which will pull in B and C. No one else ever needs to know that A ever existed. After a release or two you remove A from the distribution. You can't ever remove A. Systems pre-split must always be upgradable to systems after the split. Doesn't necessarily mean that this isn't a workable idea, just that it will always have this baggage. Luck, Dwarf -- _-_-_-_-_- Author of The Debian Linux User's Guide _-_-_-_-_-_- aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769 Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tallahassee, FL 32308 _-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Re: Re: APT 0.1.6 is released!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think you need to install the new nfs-server package. Yeah, I got bit by that too, and it took me a while to find that... maybe we need some sort of transitional-recommends field? Something that is ignored if you are installing the package (to avoid causing even more pain to dselect users, or something), but noticed on an upgrade? (obviously it need more subtlety than that, but this might be a more useful distinction than we've had before for splitting packages...) [it is *possible* that nfs-server wasn't even on the mirrors, maybe because it was new, when the netstd or netbase or whatever used to have it, dropped it; oh well, that's what unstable is all about...] I upgraded to unstable yesterday, and had no problem. dselect automatically selected nfs-server, telnetd, etc., so I didn't have to do any of that. Does dselect automatically select anything in the base section and anything in priorities Important and Standard? Or have those packages been selected for me the way the new split ones from unstable were? -Jamey Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
Re: APT 0.1.6 is released!
M == M Dietrich [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ben Please test out this new release of APT; we hope everyone can Ben enjoy it! M this apt is really great! thnx alot for your work (just for not M only sending bug-reports on apt)! it worked out to exchange M sendmail for smail without any problem. ok, it trashed my nfs, M but this may be a packaging problem. I think you need to install the new nfs-server package. M where are the other parts of apt, the frontend and the like? is M it possible to look at those programs in a early state of M development? You can always download the source. :) -- Brought to you by the letters J and K and the number 3. Do you wish to see our *surprising toys*? No! Do not! -- Orz, SCII Debian GNU/Linux -- where do you want to go tomorrow? http://www.debian.org/ I'm on FurryMUCK as Che, and EFNet and YiffNet IRC as Che_Fox.
