Re: [Fink-devel] Conflicts/Replaces for obsolete packages
On Dec 4, 2007 9:29 PM, Alexander K. Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Charles Lepple wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > The latest upstream of gerbv has dropped support for GTK+1, so I > > would like to move to a single package file for gerbv.info and > > gerbv-gtk2.info. > > > > I used to have gerbv conflict and replace gerbv-gtk2 (and vice > > versa) since it didn't seem worth it to have both packages coexist > > (it's small enough to swap out if needed). Now, gerbv-gtk2 is a > > bundle/splitoff that just depends on the main package and > > fink-obsolete-packages. > > > > For some reason, I kept the Replaces: line in the main file so that > > it could overwrite the old gerbv-gtk2 package, but that produces > > some interesting error messages if you upgrade by typing "fink > > install gerbv-gtk2". > > > > Is it reasonable to have the old package be replaced by the unified > > one? Should I just stick to the traditional method of depending on > > fink-obsolete-packages, and letting the user clean up obsolete > > packages manually? > > > > The working .info file is attached. > > > > > One issue to consider is that if the dummy upgrader is a splitoff even > users who are building the package for the first time will install > fink-obsolete-packages, and some find that unnerving. Interesting, I hadn't thought of that side effect (fink-obsolete-packages was already on my system). There is already a gerbv-gtk2.info file in CVS, so I'll just use that for the obsolete part. thanks, -- - Charles Lepple - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net http://news.gmane.org/gmane.os.apple.fink.devel
Re: [Fink-devel] Conflicts/Replaces for obsolete packages
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Charles Lepple wrote: > Hi all, > > The latest upstream of gerbv has dropped support for GTK+1, so I > would like to move to a single package file for gerbv.info and > gerbv-gtk2.info. > > I used to have gerbv conflict and replace gerbv-gtk2 (and vice > versa) since it didn't seem worth it to have both packages coexist > (it's small enough to swap out if needed). Now, gerbv-gtk2 is a > bundle/splitoff that just depends on the main package and > fink-obsolete-packages. > > For some reason, I kept the Replaces: line in the main file so that > it could overwrite the old gerbv-gtk2 package, but that produces > some interesting error messages if you upgrade by typing "fink > install gerbv-gtk2". > > Is it reasonable to have the old package be replaced by the unified > one? Should I just stick to the traditional method of depending on > fink-obsolete-packages, and letting the user clean up obsolete > packages manually? > > The working .info file is attached. > > One issue to consider is that if the dummy upgrader is a splitoff even users who are building the package for the first time will install fink-obsolete-packages, and some find that unnerving. For my own obsoleted packages I wound up using a separate .info file for the dummy upgrade package to avoid that. I think you only need to have the placeholders be splitoffs when they're to supplant dependent - -shlibs packages for a main. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHVgzvB8UpO3rKjQ8RAuX9AJ9T78Z2AaHuUTGTMbEzqfla3JKmKQCfT68u QIORIHD+VRzlgOjxwJt6qoM= =4ESl -END PGP SIGNATURE- - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net http://news.gmane.org/gmane.os.apple.fink.devel
[Fink-devel] Conflicts/Replaces for obsolete packages
Hi all, The latest upstream of gerbv has dropped support for GTK+1, so I would like to move to a single package file for gerbv.info and gerbv-gtk2.info. I used to have gerbv conflict and replace gerbv-gtk2 (and vice versa) since it didn't seem worth it to have both packages coexist (it's small enough to swap out if needed). Now, gerbv-gtk2 is a bundle/splitoff that just depends on the main package and fink-obsolete-packages. For some reason, I kept the Replaces: line in the main file so that it could overwrite the old gerbv-gtk2 package, but that produces some interesting error messages if you upgrade by typing "fink install gerbv-gtk2". Is it reasonable to have the old package be replaced by the unified one? Should I just stick to the traditional method of depending on fink-obsolete-packages, and letting the user clean up obsolete packages manually? The working .info file is attached. -- - Charles Lepple gerbv.info Description: Binary data - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net http://news.gmane.org/gmane.os.apple.fink.devel
