2011/5/17 Felipe Sateler <fsate...@debian.org>:
> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 09:04, Dan S <danstowell+de...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2011/5/15 Felipe Sateler <fsate...@debian.org>:
>>> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 06:07, Dan S <danstowell+de...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 2011/5/11 Felipe Sateler <fsate...@debian.org>:
>>>>> Hi, sorry for taking so long.
>>>>> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 15:57, Dan S <danstowell+de...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 2011/4/16 Felipe Sateler <fsate...@debian.org>:
>>>>>>> - I would really like to fold all the -dev packages into one. I don't
>>>>>>> see much point in splitting them.
>>>>>> I've discussed it with the upstream devs and we're OK with merging
>>>>>> them, so I've done that.
>>>>> Good. However, the relationship with thte old packages is wrong. It
>>>>> should Replace the older packages.
>>>> Ah right, thanks.
>>>>> However, I'm not quite sure if we
>>>>> should apply policy 7.6.1 or 7.6.2 (ie, Replaces+Breaks or
>>>>> Replaces+Conflicts+Provides).
>>>>> What do others think?
>>>> In lieu of any other responses (so far), the latter
>>>> (Replaces+Conflicts+Provides) seems to me to have the better
>>>> semantics, although we're not talking about virtual packages (which
>>>> policy 7.5 is pretty specific about). From reading the guide I can't
>>>> decide either; unless anyone can advise, maybe we should go for
>>>> Replaces+Breaks.
>>> Upon further reading, I think we should use
>>> conflicts+replaces+provides, because we are replacing whole packages.
>> OK, done.
> I probably won't be able to dedicate much time to this during this
> week, so if anyone else can have a look at this package and comment on
> it, I'd appreciate it. I'd like to have more eyeballs looking at it
> since it is not a trivial package and I could have missed some things.

I'm very grateful for your help in polishing up this package (indeed,
non-trivial). It would be great if others can comment - anyone?
And if not, what are the next steps?


pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list

Reply via email to