-- Stephane Crivisier On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 2:43 AM, Rob Browning <[email protected]> wrote:
> Recently I've been fixing some non-trivial problems I introduced in > emacsen-common 2.0.0 -- and to finish fixing them it looks like it may > be best to change (and augment) some of the add-on package requirements. > Originally, I'd really tried to make it so that as of emacsen-common > 2.*, add-on packages didn't have to depend on *anything*, but that's > proving difficult to unworkable, so I'm leaning toward adding a > requirement that add-on packages depend on "emacsen-common >= 2.0.8". > If it helps, emacsen-common is only about 140k installed. > Here's what I have so far from the hypothetical 2.0.8 changelog: > Require add-on packages to depend on emacsen-common >= 2.0.8. > > This should be simpler and safer, and emacsen-common is only ~140k, > which shouldn't be too big a burden. One specific problem this solves > is the handling of /var/lib/emacsen-common -- in particular > /var/lib/emacsen-common/state/package/installed/* if/when > emacsen-common is purged. Without the dependency, emacsen-common > can't remove the tree without clobbering the state for every add-on, > but if emacsen-common can't remove it, who can? > > It seems better to add this requirement for now (which should also > simplify the emacsen infrastructure in general), than to have every > add-on try to decide when it's safe to remove > /var/lib/emacsen-common/state/package (i.e. when they're the last > add-on being removed from the system). > > This release changes the following requirements for add-on packages > (see debian-emacs-policy for the details): > > - They must now depend on emacsen-common >= 2.0.8. > - They don't need to conflict with emacsen-common anymore. > - They don't need to guard their calls to emacs-install-package. > - They don't need to guard their calls to emacs-remove-package. > - They should no longer manage their package/installed/ file directly. > > In addition emacsen flavor packages should now depend on > emacsen-common >= 2.0.8. > Thoughts? Strong objections? > (And for whatever it's worth, I've been posting some relevant bits to > [email protected] lately, but I imagined that many/most > of you aren't subscribed.) > Thanks > -- > Rob Browning > rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org > GPG as of 2011-07-10 E6A9 DA3C C9FD 1FF8 C676 D2C4 C0F0 39E9 ED1B 597A > GPG as of 2002-11-03 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592 F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4
