Justin, thanks for your reply. On Friday 10 March 2006 16:39, Justin Pryzby wrote: > You probably want to make a new dummy package, one which I guess will > have just copyright and changelog files, will be named "cream", and > will have Depends: cream-doc, cream-program. This will cause existing > cream installations to have the same things included in them, though > by different packages.
Yes, that case looks simpler: cream ----(split)---> cream-main + cream-doc In this case 'cream' would just become a dummy package. To my eyes that's still a bit ugly. If possible I'd wish for: cream ----(split)---> cream + cream-doc > Also, if cream had conffiles which changed across the upgrade, you > would have to deal specially with them; "transferring ownership of > conffiles", see my bugs #345112 and friends.. True. If the latter alternative would somehow work I wouldn't need to transfer the conffiles to a new package because it would remain in 'cream'. > In any case, you can and should always drop the upgrade foo after the > next stable release. Another issue I would like to avoid because I'll surely forget to remove that cruft. :) A "good once and for all" solution would make me happier. But it actually looks like the solution you proposed is more common. I wonder if my proposal causes any bad things to happen. It would be very unlikely that a user just installed the new 'cream-doc' package without upgrading the 'cream' package. And since 'cream' and 'cream-doc' wouldn't have any hard dependencies (like "Depends:" instead of "Suggests:") in the future either there may well be situations where the documentation package could have another version than the main package. Doubtingly Christoph -- ~ ~ ".signature" [Modified] 1 line --100%-- 1,48 All -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
