Re: Question about a package conflict
On Tuesday 08 May 2007, Steve Langasek wrote: > Uh, you shouldn't have to depend on gconf just for the file anyway. > Call the registration hook in the postinst only if gconf is > installed, and no dependency is needed. > > Then no split is needed, and alternatives still sound like the best > option here (since it appears that the schema files being installed > by lastfm and last-exit are mutually exclusive in nature). Ah. OK. That makes sense to me. Steve and Bryan, thank you both for your help. Cheers, John Stamp
Re: Question about a package conflict
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 12:35:24PM -0700, John Stamp wrote: > On Monday 07 May 2007, Steve Langasek wrote: > > - have both packages depend on a common file providing the schema > > file (a bit heavy of a solution for a single schema file..) > What if I split lastfm into 'lastfm' and 'lastfm-gconf' and then have > lastfm Suggests: lastfm-gconf? This may still be heavy just for one > file. But then again that one file is causing the package to depend > on gconf2 and all its dependencies... Uh, you shouldn't have to depend on gconf just for the file anyway. Call the registration hook in the postinst only if gconf is installed, and no dependency is needed. Then no split is needed, and alternatives still sound like the best option here (since it appears that the schema files being installed by lastfm and last-exit are mutually exclusive in nature). -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question about a package conflict
On Monday 07 May 2007, Steve Langasek wrote: > - have both packages depend on a common file providing the schema > file (a bit heavy of a solution for a single schema file..) What if I split lastfm into 'lastfm' and 'lastfm-gconf' and then have lastfm Suggests: lastfm-gconf? This may still be heavy just for one file. But then again that one file is causing the package to depend on gconf2 and all its dependencies... Perhaps I could then coordinate with the last-exit maintainer so last-exit and lastfm-gconf conflict. Does that sound reasonable? For now though, I pinged my sponsor and uploaded a new version to mentors which should at least take care of #422720. Cheers, John Stamp -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question about a package conflict
On Monday 07 May 2007, John Stamp wrote: > But will gconf have problems if 2 schema files are referencing the > same url-handler? Answering my own question: "Yes." Let's say I have 2 packages 'a' and 'b' that want to register the same keys but in different schema files. Install a, gconf registers the keys with a's settings. Install b, and then the keys are registered with b's settings. Remove b and the keys can disappear, even though a is still installed. So to recap the options Steve mentioned: > - give each package a unique schemas filename so that no conflict > is needed Unfortunately it doesn't look like that will work, given what's above. > - have one of the packages depend on the other (doesn't > sound like a correct solution here) I agree. > - have both packages depend on a common file providing the schema > file (a bit heavy of a solution for a single schema file..) I agree. > - use alternatives or a diversion to decide which package's schema > file will be available under the named location (only appropriate > if the two packages have identical schema file contents) Unfortunately, they don't have the same contents: they have different default commands for handling the url. Maybe the maintainer of last-exit and I could agree to make them the same, but then we'd have to do alternatives for the schema file *and* alternatives for '/usr/bin/lastfm-player' or some such thing. Or am I missing something? I guess there is option 5: forget the schemas file entirely and just use gconf/defaults/10_lastfm, like before. #369907 won't be happy, because of the "This key has no schema" message, but it's less hairy than the above. Any thoughts? John Stamp -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question about a package conflict
On 5/7/07, John Stamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Monday 07 May 2007, Steve Langasek wrote: > Options: > > - give each package a unique schemas filename so that no conflict > is needed > - have one of the packages depend on the other (doesn't > sound like a correct solution here) > - have both packages depend on a common file providing the schema > file (a bit heavy of a solution for a single schema file..) > - use alternatives or a diversion to decide which package's schema > file will be available under the named location (only appropriate > if the two packages have identical schema file contents) The first option sounds like the best solution to me. Thanks! Since I'm adding the file myself, I suppose I can name it whatever I want. But will gconf have problems if 2 schema files are referencing the same url-handler? Perhaps alternatives would be best? That way the user or system administrator can make an explicit policy decision of which to use. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question about a package conflict
On Monday 07 May 2007, Steve Langasek wrote: > Options: > > - give each package a unique schemas filename so that no conflict > is needed > - have one of the packages depend on the other (doesn't > sound like a correct solution here) > - have both packages depend on a common file providing the schema > file (a bit heavy of a solution for a single schema file..) > - use alternatives or a diversion to decide which package's schema > file will be available under the named location (only appropriate > if the two packages have identical schema file contents) The first option sounds like the best solution to me. Thanks! Since I'm adding the file myself, I suppose I can name it whatever I want. But will gconf have problems if 2 schema files are referencing the same url-handler? John -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question about a package conflict
On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 03:51:26PM -0700, John Stamp wrote: > In my previous upload of lastfm I removed gconf/defaults/10_lastfm and > used a gconf/schemas/lastfm.schemas file instead. This closed the > following bug: > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=369907 > Unfortunately, that conflicts with last-exit which also installs a > lastfm.schemas file: > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=422720 > I don't want to reopen #369907 if I can help it, and I certainly don't > want to add a Conflicts: last-exit to the package. Are there any > suggestions about how to handle this? Options: - give each package a unique schemas filename so that no conflict is needed - have one of the packages depend on the other (doesn't sound like a correct solution here) - have both packages depend on a common file providing the schema file (a bit heavy of a solution for a single schema file..) - use alternatives or a diversion to decide which package's schema file will be available under the named location (only appropriate if the two packages have identical schema file contents) -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
