On Sun, 17 May 2009, Bill Allombert wrote: > > So there's several options that come to mind for that: > > > > * We don't care, and expect users might miss docs on the dir file in > > some cases or need to upgrade dpkg or any of the info-readers. > > * Make info providing packages depend on install-info. > > * Make info providing packages Break old dpkgs. > > * Not remove calls to install-info from packages until squeeze+1 > > (and make install-info wrappers not warn in some conditions). > > > > Probably the sanest and safest is the last one, but slowest and with > > less immediate benefits. OTOH not registering some docs on the dir > > file is not that grave, as they will get readded whe upgrading. > > So I'd go for the "we don't care", but would not mind being more > > conservative. > > Since all packages that use install-info need to be changed, options 2) > seems doable, and since install-info used to be provided by dpkg it even > makes sense. I do not have experience with the behaviour of Break during > upgrade (with aprt or aptitude) to comment on 3)
And then people would file bugs to demote it to Recommends/Suggests because it's not necessary for the application to work. The best solution is to depend on the version of dpkg that breaks the non-updated info browsers. That way people are forced to upgrade dpkg and the info browsers at the same time (and install-info is installed). On the downside, it will make backports painful (unless those dependencies are manually removed in the backport). Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Contribuez à Debian et gagnez un cahier de l'admin Debian Lenny : http://www.ouaza.com/wp/2009/03/02/contribuer-a-debian-gagner-un-livre/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
