On sam., 2011-07-30 at 15:17 +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote: > On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 01:10:48PM +0200, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote: > > On sam., 2011-07-30 at 12:27 +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote: > > > The lightdm package since revision 5887 depends on > > > lightdm-gtk-greeter | lightdm-greeter (>= 0.9.2-1) > > > > > > The lightdm-greeter package is virtual, and virtual packages > > > can only satisfy unversioned dependencies. This alternative > > > is thus unsatisfiable. > > > > Hmh. I made that in order to be sure lightdm-greeter would be upgraded > > to a version depending on the -gtk or -qt package. But as the initial > > version was in unstable less than a day, maybe it's ok to just drop the > > versioning without providing a virtual package lightdm-gtk depending on > > lightdm-gtk-greeter. > This alternative dependency is completely ignored, as it is impossible > to satisfy. Versioned dependencies only work for real packages, so if > you want to do it completely correct, you need to depend on the real > packages with OR. > > lightdm-gtk-greeter | lightdm-qt-greeter
Yeah, for now as there's only two greeters that looks like the best solution indeed :) > > Alternatively, you can use Conflicts against lightdm-qt and > lightdm-gtk. > > And for the transition in package names to work correctly, you should > probably use Replaces, Provides, and Conflicts against the old names, > as specified in Policy 7.6.2, to remove the old packages completely. That's already the case. -- Yves-Alexis _______________________________________________ Pkg-xfce-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-xfce-devel
