On May 25, Yann Dirson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 10:30:20AM +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > > Package: openjade1.3 > > Version: 1.3.2-4 > > > > This package probably should contain > > Provides: openjade > > > > to satisfy dependencies of packages that require or advise to have > > "openjade" installed. > > I have already considered that when initially packaging openjade1.3. > > The problem is that package "openjade" contains a very particular version of > openjade. Indeed I'd be more happy to have 1.3 in the "openjade" package > and 1.4devel in a differently-named package, but things are not that way. > > If openjade1.3 declares to provide openjade, that will still cause APT to > install openjade unless told otherwise, so this is not a complete solution > anyway. > > I've already suggested that packages should depend/suggest/whatever > openjade1.3 preferably to openjade and jade, using 'or' groups with > openjade1.3 as first term. This would allow people to use > whatever version they want, while having openjade1.3 being the default one > installed. > > I CC this message to debian-sgml. I'll let this bug open, and if noone > objects, I'll start mass-filing 'normal' bugs on those packages that declare > a relation[1] on openjade without listing openjade1.3 first. I'll also > mass-file 'wishlist' bugs on those that mention only jade and none of > openjade* - wishlist because openjade* are more strictly addhering to the > standard, and some tools/stylesheets may not be compatible with them.
Why do you think it's a bug to depend on openjade over openjade1.3? P.S. No argument with your wishlist bugs about depending on only jade. -- Neil Roeth -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
