On Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 12:58:02PM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote: > Hi! > > On Wed, 27 Dec 2000, Christian Kurz wrote: > > > Are you sure that grafix1 and grafix-dev do not have any files in > > common? If yes, your suggestion would be alright. > > yes, fine :) > > > > Will "apt-get upgrade" work if the new package only has > > > | Replaces: foo > > > | Conflicts: foo > > > ioe, will it pick up the new package automatically if the old > > > one was installed? (it didn't for me although I might have > > > screwed up) > > > > Hm, why do you ask me such a question via this mail, when you can get a > > faster and better answer via IRC, where some other people can help too? > > I'll ask on -mentors now [x-post & fup2] > > We have an old package "grafix" which should be replaced by "grafix1". > What is the correct way to do this? > > If I simply add the new grafix1 package with > Package: grafix1 > Replaces: grafix > Conflicts: grafix > > then apt-get install grafix1 will work just fine (i.e. remove grafix), > however apt-get (dist-)upgrade will not realize there's a new version > under a different name. > > > The only solution I could come up with currently is to make a new > "grafix" package also (with no content, only meta information) that > would depend on the "grafix1" package, so upon upgrade the new > grafix package would require grafix1 and since this conflicts with > grafix itself, grafix will be removed and grafix1 installed.
I used a Provides: statement to solve a similar problem cropping up in dselect on my system. What if you add Provides: grafix to your package, and see if that works. I'm not sure about having a new package providing an older, obsoleted package and then removing the Provides in dist+1 or dist+2 though. Would be nice to know if it would solve your immediate problem with apt-get [dist-]upgrade. > This is however an ugly solution in Shorty's and my opinion, so > I'ld like to know wheter there is a better solution. > > If not, how long should this fake package be kept around?
