Michael Koch wrote: > On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 05:28:25PM +0100, Matthew Johnson wrote: >> On Fri Aug 28 16:44, Steffen Moeller wrote: >>> I had felt that when the user apt-get installs libjgrapht-java, he should >>> be asked about >>> the version he wants to install. Also, I did not want to disturb packages >>> that depend on >>> libjgrapht-java today. If I had libjgrapht-java provided by the >>> libjgrapht0.6-java package >>> and by libjgrapht0.7-java, then an apt-get dist-upgrade would render >>> something previously >>> working suddenly unusable. >> Well, I'm definitely of the opinion that the user should _not_ be asked >> about the version he wants to install and, in fact, the user should >> generally not being typing `apt-get install libjgrapht-java'. >> >> The dependency system should be good enough to handle this without >> sudden transitions. If it's backwards incompatible surely you should >> change the package name and things should be depending on the old name.
Yes, I agree. >> (For those in the debconf/post-debconf discussions, this is precisely >> why I want to reformulate our version handling policies for Java) > > +1 > libjgrapht0.6 is already a separate package. And if it doesn't provide libjgrapht, some currently installable package would become uninstallable. Matthew is right in that the dependencies to libjgrapht-java, rather than to its (now) versioned counterpart, shall be deprecated. But for now, they have to stay. I definitely want /usr/share/java/jgrapht.jar to be on the system, since many programs do depend on such. There can only be one such link at a time, but this is fine, I think. > The question is about the most evil we could do. You are certainly not commenting on the package that I had just uploaded. Steffen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
