Bug#519141: Any news about #519141?

[Jonas Smedegaard]

Hi Nelson (and others),

On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 02:09:22AM -0300, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote:

Any news about this issue, please?

With this circular dependency, it's not possible to remove the dummy gs-common package from the system (if it's dummy, then it should be removable):

 1) gs-common is not a "dummy" package as it does serve a purpose.






 2) ghostscript contains arch-all data more suitable for gs-common








 - Jonas

--
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Thanks for bringing our attention to this bug (or mine at least - fellow team members have unfortunately kept silent for very very long). Currently gs-common serves the purpose of avoiding some corner-case oddity transitioning from the multiflavored gs-gpl/gs-esp/... to the current unified one. Yes, that unification happened prior to Lenny, but I believe for maximum reliability during upgrades we should keep clutches around until after transition+1 release which in this case means *after* Squeeze can we drop gs-common (and gs-gpl and gs-esp, but that's a separate issue). We can clarify this by calling gs-common a "clutch" package rather than a "dummy" package. But it doesn't handle the actual circular dependency, and I actually like Pino's proposal, so read on... It seems to me that Pino is right: currently the binary ghostscript package contains quite a lot of arch-all data which seems more appropriate to ship in an arch-all package like gs-common. I will give my fellow team members a week to comment on this (I might have missed some issues known to them), and intent to then revisit this when the ghostscript packaging released this morning enters testing. Please do ping in 10 days from now - I might very well forget above promise :-/

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature