On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 13:49:33 +0200, Luca Capello wrote: > Hi there! > > On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 03:58:47 +0200, Michael Gilbert wrote: > > severity 596862 minor > > I do not agree with this severity, but it is your package, thus your > choice. > > > On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 18:15:19 +0200 Luca Capello wrote: > >> A lenny user who installed the xpdf-reader package and *not* the old > >> xpdf metapackage will still have the xpdf-common package installed, even > >> after the upgrade to the new (and real) xpdf package. > > > > why is this a problem? "apt-get autoremove", which is suggested in > > apt's output will take care of removing it. > > Read below. > > >> Second, the xpdf-common package is left installed and it is not > >> automatically removed, which means that the other configuration files in > >> /etc/xpdf (xpdfrc-arabic, xpdfrc-cyrillic, xpdfrc-greek, xpdfrc-hebrew, > >> xpdfrc-latin2, xpdfrc-thai and xpdfrc-turkish) are left installed as > >> well, with the user noticing nothing about that. > > > > the presence of these files presents no problems that i'm aware of. > > Still, there is a discrepancy between xpdf versions: you have something > From version 3.02-2 and something from version 3.02-10. And this is all > but a clean situation. > > >> The correct solution is to also provide a transitional xpdf-common > >> package, please do that. > > > > i don't really see the problem. what's the difference between a > > transitional package that's in the autoremove list vs. the old package > > in the autoremove list? both get taken care of with apt's autoremove > > feature. > > I think this abuses apt's autoremove feature (as well as dpkg's > Replaces: one). > > Moreover, there is a big difference between a *transitional* empty > package and the old one: the latter is yet another Debian package, the > former identifies a specific action, i.e. the fact that the xpdf sources > have been re-organized and now there is no need for separate > -common/-reader packages. This is exactly why we have transitional > packages, because users *must* now if a package installed on their > system is still a valid one or not (and this is not the case for the > current situation). > > BTW, I recall that there were some notes about transitional packages in > Debian Policy, like the fact that they must survive one release > (i.e. real xpdf-reader package in lenny, transitional xpdf-reader > package in squeeze, no more xpdf-reader package in squeeze+1), but > it seems I could not find anymore this information. > > Anyway, again, it is your package and, frankly speaking, I do not care > so much about that: I explained my point (which thinks about the user > and not about the fact that we have yet another package installed or > not) and that is all, you are the maintainer, thus you have full action > on your package. Feel free to deal with this bug as you wish, but > please tag it wontfix if you do not re-add the transitional package.
i understand your perspective. however, i personally don't see a problem. i am willing to accept a patch as long is it doesn't involve reintroducing the xpdf-common transitional package (i.e. getting breaks/conflicts right so its automatically removed). thanks, mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
