2014-05-30 20:51 GMT+01:00 Jakub Wilk jw...@debian.org:
* Ghislain Vaillant ghisv...@gmail.com, 2014-05-30, 15:45:
Basically, if I install python-fftw3 and call `dpkg -i
python-pyfftw.deb`, then dpkg figures out the replacement, uninstall
python-fftw3 and configure and install
* Ghislain Vaillant ghisv...@gmail.com, 2014-05-31, 10:16:
apt-get install would likely figure the correct order of debs.
However, apt-get dist-upgrade won't know how to upgrade the old
packages. So you probably need transitional packages:
https://wiki.debian.org/Renaming_a_Package
A
* Ghislain Vaillant ghisv...@gmail.com, 2014-05-30, 09:44:
Now say I want to rename the -foo suffix into -bar for both package
python-foo and python-foo-dbg. The debian developer's reference
suggests to Conflicts/Replaces/Provides the old name and change the
name of the package to the new name
2014-05-30 14:37 GMT+01:00 Jakub Wilk jw...@debian.org:
* Ghislain Vaillant ghisv...@gmail.com, 2014-05-30, 09:44:
Now say I want to rename the -foo suffix into -bar for both package
python-foo and python-foo-dbg. The debian developer's reference suggests to
Conflicts/Replaces/Provides the
Maybe this is beyond dpkg's job and apt or aptitude would handle that just fine.
I suspect that's the issue: I don't think dpkg knows how to find
packages you didn't explicitly give it (sources.list is in /etc/apt, not
/etc/dpkg...), so if dependencies require other packages it will error
* Ghislain Vaillant ghisv...@gmail.com, 2014-05-30, 15:45:
Basically, if I install python-fftw3 and call `dpkg -i
python-pyfftw.deb`, then dpkg figures out the replacement, uninstall
python-fftw3 and configure and install python-pyfftw.
If I install python-fftw3-dbg, and python-fftw3
Hi!
Christoph Berg wrote:
Re: Nelson A. de Oliveira in [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am planning to rename the source package to biofox only,
instead mozilla-firefox-biofox.
Why? The user won't see the source package name change. It's only
extra hassle for you and the ftp-masters. If you really
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 12:48:46AM -0300, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote:
Hi!
Christoph Berg wrote:
Re: Nelson A. de Oliveira in [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am planning to rename the source package to biofox only,
instead mozilla-firefox-biofox.
Why? The user won't see the source package
On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 10:31:06PM -0300, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote:
Hi!
I am maintaining a package called mozilla-firefox-biofox.
Both ths source and the binary package have the same name. Biofox was
always released only to Mozilla Firefox and the Mozilla Suite was not
supported.
* Justin Pryzby [Mon, 12 Sep 2005 01:52:32 -0400]:
On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 10:31:06PM -0300, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote:
I am planning to rename the source package to biofox only, instead
mozilla-firefox-biofox.
May I do this? How can I do this? Is it there some policy saying about
Re: Nelson A. de Oliveira in [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am planning to rename the source package to biofox only, instead
mozilla-firefox-biofox.
Why? The user won't see the source package name change. It's only
extra hassle for you and the ftp-masters. If you really want, rename
the binary package
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 03:11:41PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
would it be possible to upload the new package before the old one is
removed?
Yes.
BTW I've just discovered another problem in this renaming. Previous
upstream author used timestamp based
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 03:11:41PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
would it be possible to upload the new package before the old one is
removed?
Yes.
BTW I've just discovered another problem in this renaming. Previous
upstream author used timestamp based
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
The other approach is to ask for removal of the old source package and
upload a new one which generates the same binary packages. This seems to
be the best approach but I'm a bit scared about the transition phase ...
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 03:11:41PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
would it be possible to upload the new package before the old one is
removed?
Yes.
BTW I've just discovered another problem in this renaming. Previous
upstream author used timestamp based versioning with last version
20040120
Hi.
Stefano Zacchiroli ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Obviously 1.3.3 is less then 20040120, how can I cope with this issue?
Epoch. 1:1.3.3 20040120.
Cheers
T.
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 04:49:22PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 03:11:41PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
would it be possible to upload the new package before the old one is
removed?
Yes.
BTW I've just discovered another problem in this renaming. Previous
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
Obviously 1.3.3 is less then 20040120, how can I cope with this issue?
epoch.
Grüße/Regards,
René
- --
.''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
: :' : http://www.debian.org |
Stefano Zacchiroli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Upstream maintainership of a package of mine changed from the old author
to a new one. New upstream maintainer decided to change the source name
of the package and thus the tarball name.
How can I handle such a change? The simplest approach seems
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
The other approach is to ask for removal of the old source package and
upload a new one which generates the same binary packages. This seems to
be the best approach but I'm a bit scared about the transition phase ...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
Obviously 1.3.3 is less then 20040120, how can I cope with this issue?
epoch.
Grüße/Regards,
René
- --
.''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
: :' : http://www.debian.org |
Stefano Zacchiroli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Upstream maintainership of a package of mine changed from the old author
to a new one. New upstream maintainer decided to change the source name
of the package and thus the tarball name.
How can I handle such a change? The simplest approach seems
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 11:23:40AM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
When jumping from 4.3 to 4.5 I'd like to rename pgrep to pcregrep and
to provide seamless upgrades I'd introduce a dummy package pgrep
depending on pcregrep, however replaces/conflicts gives me a headache.
Package: pcregrep
On 2004-03-07 Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 11:23:40AM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
When jumping from 4.3 to 4.5 I'd like to rename pgrep to pcregrep and
to provide seamless upgrades I'd introduce a dummy package pgrep
depending on pcregrep, however
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 01:17:46PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
On 2004-03-07 Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 11:23:40AM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
When jumping from 4.3 to 4.5 I'd like to rename pgrep to pcregrep and
to provide seamless upgrades I'd
On 2004-03-07 Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 01:17:46PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
On 2004-03-07 Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 11:23:40AM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
When jumping from 4.3 to 4.5 I'd like to rename pgrep
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 11:23:40AM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
When jumping from 4.3 to 4.5 I'd like to rename pgrep to pcregrep and
to provide seamless upgrades I'd introduce a dummy package pgrep
depending on pcregrep, however replaces/conflicts gives me a headache.
Package: pcregrep
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 01:17:46PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
On 2004-03-07 Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 11:23:40AM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
When jumping from 4.3 to 4.5 I'd like to rename pgrep to pcregrep and
to provide seamless upgrades I'd
On 2004-03-07 Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 01:17:46PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
On 2004-03-07 Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 11:23:40AM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
When jumping from 4.3 to 4.5 I'd like to rename pgrep
On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 05:16:53PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 10:03:11 +0200, Andreas Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
[...]
quoting a recent discussion on debian-devel:
-- From: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] To:
[...]
Mindless optimism. If you try
On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 00:58:37 +0200, Andreas Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 05:16:53PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 10:03:11 +0200, Andreas Metzler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
[...]
quoting a recent discussion on debian-devel:
-- From:
On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 05:16:53PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 10:03:11 +0200, Andreas Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
[...]
quoting a recent discussion on debian-devel:
-- From: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] To:
[...]
Mindless optimism. If you try
On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 00:58:37 +0200, Andreas Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 05:16:53PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 10:03:11 +0200, Andreas Metzler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
[...]
quoting a recent discussion on debian-devel:
-- From:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is not a standard to make a package to disappear, but there is
something you can do to ensure that apt-get upgrade works: Just make
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 11:54:35PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is not a standard to make a package to disappear, but there is
something you can do to ensure that apt-get upgrade works: Just make
On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 10:03:11 +0200, Andreas Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 11:54:35PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is not a standard to make a package to disappear, but
there
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is not a standard to make a package to disappear, but there is
something you can do to ensure that apt-get upgrade works: Just make
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 11:54:35PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is not a standard to make a package to disappear, but there is
something you can do to ensure that apt-get upgrade works: Just make
On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 10:03:11 +0200, Andreas Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 11:54:35PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is not a standard to make a package to disappear, but
there
Quoting Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I created a Packages.gz file to test the upgrade to these and added an
entry to it to sources.list. Here's what happens:
# apt-get -u dist-upgrade
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... Done
Calculating Upgrade... Done
The
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
In the upcoming version of the `emacs-goodies-el' source package, I want
the following to happen to these bianry packages:
`emacs-goodies-extra-el'
- removed and contents merged into `emacs-goodies-el'
`debbugs-el'
- replaced by
Quoting Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
If the ordinary tools to upgrade the system are not enough to upgrade
the system and the release notes are longer than that, I think it's a
clear sign that we have made something wrong.
I think versioned provides would be a way to fix this by avoiding
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 03:09:39PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
In the upcoming version of the `emacs-goodies-el' source package, I want
the following to happen to these bianry packages:
`emacs-goodies-extra-el'
- removed and contents merged into `emacs-goodies-el'
`debbugs-el'
Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe, the fact that APT tries to not remove any of your currently
installed packages during an upgrade.
kay, I was under the false impression this worked.
There is not a standard to make a package to disappear, but there is
something you can do to
Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is not a standard to make a package to disappear, but there is
something you can do to ensure that apt-get upgrade works: Just make
emacs-goodies-extra-el a dummy (empty) package which depends on
Quoting Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I created a Packages.gz file to test the upgrade to these and added an
entry to it to sources.list. Here's what happens:
# apt-get -u dist-upgrade
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... Done
Calculating Upgrade... Done
The
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
In the upcoming version of the `emacs-goodies-el' source package, I want
the following to happen to these bianry packages:
`emacs-goodies-extra-el'
- removed and contents merged into `emacs-goodies-el'
`debbugs-el'
- replaced by
Quoting Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
If the ordinary tools to upgrade the system are not enough to upgrade
the system and the release notes are longer than that, I think it's a
clear sign that we have made something wrong.
I think versioned provides would be a way to fix this by avoiding
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 03:09:39PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
In the upcoming version of the `emacs-goodies-el' source package, I want
the following to happen to these bianry packages:
`emacs-goodies-extra-el'
- removed and contents merged into `emacs-goodies-el'
`debbugs-el'
Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe, the fact that APT tries to not remove any of your currently
installed packages during an upgrade.
kay, I was under the false impression this worked.
There is not a standard to make a package to disappear, but there is
something you can do to
Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is not a standard to make a package to disappear, but there is
something you can do to ensure that apt-get upgrade works: Just make
emacs-goodies-extra-el a dummy (empty) package which depends on
On Mon, Jul 29, 2002 at 10:28:50AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
On Mon, Jul 29, 2002 at 12:04:51AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
On Sun, Jul 28, 2002 at 11:24:16AM -0400, christophe barb? wrote:
On Sun, Jul 28, 2002 at 01:04:07PM +1000, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
So in the control file, I've
On Mon, Jul 29, 2002 at 10:28:50AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
On Mon, Jul 29, 2002 at 12:04:51AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
On Sun, Jul 28, 2002 at 11:24:16AM -0400, christophe barb? wrote:
On Sun, Jul 28, 2002 at 01:04:07PM +1000, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
So in the control file, I've
On Mon, Jul 29, 2002 at 12:04:51AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
On Sun, Jul 28, 2002 at 11:24:16AM -0400, christophe barb? wrote:
On Sun, Jul 28, 2002 at 01:04:07PM +1000, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
So in the control file, I've specified that libglut3 Conflicts and Replaces
glutg3 for versions
On Mon, Jul 29, 2002 at 12:04:51AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
On Sun, Jul 28, 2002 at 11:24:16AM -0400, christophe barb? wrote:
On Sun, Jul 28, 2002 at 01:04:07PM +1000, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
So in the control file, I've specified that libglut3 Conflicts and
Replaces
glutg3 for
On Sun, 28 Jul 2002, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
I intend to rename the glut packages from
glutg3
glutg3-dev
to
libglut3
libglut-dev
to follow the convention for library package naming.
So in the control file, I've specified that libglut3 Conflicts and Replaces
glutg3 for versions =
On Sun, 28 Jul 2002 13:04:07 +1000,
Jamie Wilkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I intend to rename the glut packages from
glutg3
glutg3-dev
to
libglut3
libglut-dev
to follow the convention for library package naming.
I prefer libglut3-dev .
--
Oohara Yuuma [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debian
On Sun, 28 Jul 2002, Oohara Yuuma wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jul 2002 13:04:07 +1000,
Jamie Wilkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I intend to rename the glut packages from
glutg3
glutg3-dev
to
libglut3
libglut-dev
to follow the convention for library package naming.
I prefer libglut3-dev
On Sun, Jul 28, 2002 at 04:34:54PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
We should make versioned -dev (binary) packages the exception, not the norm.
libglut-dev is better. Think about libglut3-dev, libglut4-dev,
libglut5-dev etc. and how libglut-dev makes upgrades much easier.
Except that this means
On Sun, 28 Jul 2002 16:34:54 +0200 (CEST),
Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jul 2002, Oohara Yuuma wrote:
I prefer libglut3-dev .
We should make versioned -dev (binary) packages the exception, not the norm.
libglut-dev is better. Think about libglut3-dev, libglut4-dev,
Colin Watson wrote:
On Sun, Jul 28, 2002 at 04:34:54PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
We should make versioned -dev (binary) packages the exception, not
the norm. libglut-dev is better. Think about libglut3-dev,
libglut4-dev, libglut5-dev etc. and how libglut-dev makes upgrades
much
On Sun, Jul 28, 2002 at 01:04:07PM +1000, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
I intend to rename the glut packages from
glutg3
glutg3-dev
to
libglut3
libglut-dev
to follow the convention for library package naming.
So in the control file, I've specified that libglut3 Conflicts and Replaces
On Sun, Jul 28, 2002 at 11:24:16AM -0400, christophe barb? wrote:
On Sun, Jul 28, 2002 at 01:04:07PM +1000, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
So in the control file, I've specified that libglut3 Conflicts and Replaces
glutg3 for versions = 3.7-15, and created a glutg3 package with no content,
I am
This one time, at band camp, christophe barbé wrote:
On Sun, Jul 28, 2002 at 01:04:07PM +1000, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
I intend to rename the glut packages from
glutg3
glutg3-dev
to
libglut3
libglut-dev
to follow the convention for library package naming.
So in the control file, I've
This one time, at band camp, Oohara Yuuma wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jul 2002 13:04:07 +1000,
Jamie Wilkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I intend to rename the glut packages from
glutg3
glutg3-dev
to
libglut3
libglut-dev
to follow the convention for library package naming.
I prefer libglut3-dev .
This one time, at band camp, Santiago Vila wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jul 2002, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
I intend to rename the glut packages from
glutg3
glutg3-dev
to
libglut3
libglut-dev
to follow the convention for library package naming.
So in the control file, I've specified that libglut3
On Sun, 28 Jul 2002, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
I intend to rename the glut packages from
glutg3
glutg3-dev
to
libglut3
libglut-dev
to follow the convention for library package naming.
So in the control file, I've specified that libglut3 Conflicts and Replaces
glutg3 for versions =
On Sun, 28 Jul 2002 13:04:07 +1000,
Jamie Wilkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I intend to rename the glut packages from
glutg3
glutg3-dev
to
libglut3
libglut-dev
to follow the convention for library package naming.
I prefer libglut3-dev .
--
Oohara Yuuma [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debian
On Sun, Jul 28, 2002 at 04:34:54PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
We should make versioned -dev (binary) packages the exception, not the norm.
libglut-dev is better. Think about libglut3-dev, libglut4-dev,
libglut5-dev etc. and how libglut-dev makes upgrades much easier.
Except that this means
On Sun, 28 Jul 2002 16:34:54 +0200 (CEST),
Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jul 2002, Oohara Yuuma wrote:
I prefer libglut3-dev .
We should make versioned -dev (binary) packages the exception, not the norm.
libglut-dev is better. Think about libglut3-dev, libglut4-dev,
Colin Watson wrote:
On Sun, Jul 28, 2002 at 04:34:54PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
We should make versioned -dev (binary) packages the exception, not
the norm. libglut-dev is better. Think about libglut3-dev,
libglut4-dev, libglut5-dev etc. and how libglut-dev makes upgrades
much easier.
On Sun, Jul 28, 2002 at 01:04:07PM +1000, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
I intend to rename the glut packages from
glutg3
glutg3-dev
to
libglut3
libglut-dev
to follow the convention for library package naming.
So in the control file, I've specified that libglut3 Conflicts and Replaces
On Sun, Jul 28, 2002 at 11:24:16AM -0400, christophe barb? wrote:
On Sun, Jul 28, 2002 at 01:04:07PM +1000, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
So in the control file, I've specified that libglut3 Conflicts and Replaces
glutg3 for versions = 3.7-15, and created a glutg3 package with no content,
I am
This one time, at band camp, christophe barbé wrote:
On Sun, Jul 28, 2002 at 01:04:07PM +1000, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
I intend to rename the glut packages from
glutg3
glutg3-dev
to
libglut3
libglut-dev
to follow the convention for library package naming.
So in the control file, I've
This one time, at band camp, Oohara Yuuma wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jul 2002 13:04:07 +1000,
Jamie Wilkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I intend to rename the glut packages from
glutg3
glutg3-dev
to
libglut3
libglut-dev
to follow the convention for library package naming.
I prefer libglut3-dev .
This one time, at band camp, Santiago Vila wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jul 2002, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
I intend to rename the glut packages from
glutg3
glutg3-dev
to
libglut3
libglut-dev
to follow the convention for library package naming.
So in the control file, I've specified that libglut3
David Coe wrote:
since it will still produce a 'wenglish' binary package, i assume
upgrades won't be a problem, but what about the old sources? how do i
get rid of them when i upload the new source package with its new
name?
File a bug on ftp.debian.org. I don't think they'll be deleted
77 matches
Mail list logo
