Bug#890320: apt: is there a better way to handle the FOO-common package upgrade problem?

2018-02-18 Thread David Kalnischkies
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 01:18:02PM +0100, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Now, in between the time FOO-common is ACCEPTed and FOO has been > rebuilt for that architecture, landed on the mirrors, etc., APT > wants to upgrade FOO-common and remove the old version of FOO. Note that the archive has some prot

Bug#890320: apt: is there a better way to handle the FOO-common package upgrade problem?

2018-02-13 Thread Thorsten Glaser
On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > I was thinking of adding a new header field to one of the two > packages that declares “FOO-common is only here for the benefit > of FOO” so the dependency resolver can DTRT (its default mecha‐ Hmm. But then, consider this: src:musescore builds muses

Bug#890320: apt: is there a better way to handle the FOO-common package upgrade problem?

2018-02-13 Thread Thorsten Glaser
Package: apt Version: 1.6~alpha7 Severity: wishlist Recently, package splitting has become a lot more common, tons of packages have FOO and FOO-common now, the latter being arch:all. Now, in between the time FOO-common is ACCEPTed and FOO has been rebuilt for that architecture, landed on the mirr