On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 11:42:42PM +0100, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote: > I'm not really sure if it's worth the effort. I think we wuld better put > our limited time into fixing the already reported discover1 issues and > providing discover2 packages (I will work on the latter tomorrow).
That's fine with me. Would you mind checking discover2 in to either svn or cvs so I can work on it too? > > 1) When we move to discover2 in sid, we'd have to move the > > discover-data package to discover-data-2.4. I think I'll actually have > > both current discover-data packages Provides: discover1-data instead, > > and the new discover to depend on that. That should help plan for this > > issue, minimizing its impact. > OK. All right, I'll prep a discover-data-2.6 package tonight if I get some time (I'm in finals right now until the end of the week, so my Debian time is a bit limited for now). Would you like me to check it in to cvs or svn? > > 3) I don't see any clean method to allow the 2.4 and 2.6 packages to > > coexist. I suppose doing some more hacky garbage with symlinks and a > > debconf question (the way the *dm packages now do) is an option that > > I'd be willing to throw together. > I think the easiest would be to make the to packages conflict and > document this in README.Debian. Yeah, although I feel like it hurts people who are just testing out 2.6. If I can implement my version quickly and without too much pain then I'll just use that. If not, then the conflicts is definitely the way to go. - David Nusinow -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
