On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 00:58, Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> wrote: > David Kalnischkies <kalnischk...@gmail.com> writes: > >> Sidenote: I am not sure why the usage of 'disappearing packages' was >> removed from the wiki as dpkg and APT support them in squeeze - at least >> in my eyes it looked like the holy grail to prevent maintainers from >> using all these half-working tricks in battle against APT, but i will >> leave that up to decide for others as IANAD{D,M}. > > You can't use disappearing packages with Policy-compliant packages so far > as I can tell, since it would require both packages provide the same > /usr/share/doc directory and changelog file, which is a Policy violation.
oldpkg depends on newpkg - and in terms of a package rename it should be coming from the same source package. /usr/share/doc/oldpkg is a link to /usr/share/doc/newpkg in both, the oldpkg and the newpkg, so that new- can take over the last remaining file of oldpkg. Isn't that exactly what ยง12.5 allows? Quoting: http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-docs.html#s-copyrightfile > /usr/share/doc/package may be a symbolic link to another directory > in /usr/share/doc only if the two packages both come from the same source > and the first package Depends on the second. These rules are important > because copyrights must be extractable by mechanical means. The usr-share-doc-symlink-to-foreign-package tag in lintian also only triggers if the packages are not from the same source package. So is there another section in conflict with this one or have i just misunderstood something? Best regards David Kalnischkies -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAAZ6_fAQ=RYy9rHKVrB3OTwHxKU7v_0dOptRE7PSLof+^e...@mail.gmail.com