On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 07:08, Adrian Knoth <a...@drcomp.erfurt.thur.de> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 08:18:23PM -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote: > >> > We need not change anything now, just use a more meaningful tag than >> > "" next time we want to bump. > >> I think this makes most sense. (although it does require renaming >> libjack-dev to libjack-jackd1-dev and making it Provide: libjack-dev). > > Is that required now? I don't think so. Policy 7.5: > > --- policy --- > If there are both concrete and virtual packages of the same name, then > the dependency may be satisfied (or the conflict caused) by either the > concrete package with the name in question or any other concrete > package which provides the virtual package with the name in question. > This is so that, for example, supposing we have > Package: foo > Depends: bar > and someone else releases an enhanced version of the `bar' package > they can say: > Package: bar-plus > Provides: bar > and the `bar-plus' package will now also satisfy the dependency for > the `foo' package. > --- end of policy --- > > And we still have versioned build dependencies. Quoting policy-7.5 > again: > > --- policy --- > If a relationship field has a version number attached, only real > packages will be considered to see whether the relationship is > satisfied (or the prohibition violated, for a conflict or breakage). > In other words, if a version number is specified, this is a request to > ignore all `Provides' for that package name and consider only real > packages. The package manager will assume that a package providing > that virtual package is not of the "right" version. > --- end of policy --- > > While this would still cause trouble with the few packages you've > mentioned (I'm going to fix calf in a second) for those who have > installed libjack-jackd2-dev, it won't do any harm on the buildds. > > > So long story short: it seems the only change reguired right now is the > updated jackd2 package with libjack-jackd2-dev "Provides: libjack-dev". > > And that's already built and waiting for an upload on my system. Just > give me the "OK" in case you agree. ;) >
Yes. But when libjack${tag}-dev appears, libjack-dev needs to be renamed to something less generic, to allow people to require jackd1 if they really need to. -- Saludos, Felipe Sateler _______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers