To try and answer my own question, these packages are in oldlibs in
Ubuntu 13.10 and -- as far as I can tell -- are not transitional
packages.
Main:
1. libdb4.8
2. libpangox-1.0-0
3. python-gobject-2
4. python-gobject-2-dev
Universe:
5. i965-va-driver
6. kdegames-mahjongg-data
7. libdb1-compat
Thanks Scott for that lucid explanation. One more question (which
applies to bug 526330 too): In Synaptic I count 105 packages in oldlibs.
How many of those are *not* transitional packages? Are any of them
packages that someone might reasonably want to install/uninstall (USC),
or refrain from
** Description changed:
+ update-manager 1:0.185, Ubuntu 13.04
+
The update-manager GUI lists a number of Transitional dummy packages
available for update. There doesn't seem to be any additional
information available about these packages through the UI. As a user I
have no idea what I
I endorse throwing it into ubuntu-base, which is code for mysterious
stuff you don't understand. I would also support just having a new
backwards compatibility section to carry oldlibs.
As for why dummy packages exist, it's not just to handle old
dependencies that haven't been updated.
Thanks for those answers. I'm thinking we should have a separate
Transitional packages section below (not inside) Ubuntu base. Does
that seem sensible?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
But how do we tell that a package is a transitional dummy package,
exactly? For example, ttf-arphic-uka and libdb4.8 are both in the
oldlibs section. Both ship three files, or one if you don't count the
changelog and the copyright notice. ttf-arphic-ukai is labelled
transitional dummy package, but
Regarding a separate Transitional section, I'm not sure users would
know what to do with that information. Maybe just throw them into
Ubuntu base itself at that point, as they are similarly
implementation details of how our packaging system works.
Regarding how to tell if a package is a dummy
Well, they are updated because their version number goes up with along
with the related binary package. We theoretically should update it, in
case the first version of such an oldlibs package didn't depend on
exactly the right things or something. Seems unlikely, but we should do
it.
We can't
Whether or not transitional dummy package is informative, that is what
the Debian wiki currently recommends you use for the synopsis.
http://wiki.debian.org/Renaming_a_Package And for all I know, maybe
there are scripts or other tools for renaming a package, which embed
that string in their code.
** Attachment added: Screenshot showing list of transitional dummy packages
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/update-manager/+bug/1166230/+attachment/3631137/+files/updater-dummy-packages.png
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is
** Changed in: update-manager (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided = Medium
** Changed in: update-manager (Ubuntu)
Status: New = Triaged
** Changed in: update-manager (Ubuntu)
Assignee: (unassigned) = Michael Terry (mterry)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a
I'll assign to mpt for suggestions, but I suspect he'll rightly say that
this is really a bug with those packages, and you shouldn't blame the
container for its contents.
Specifically, Debian policy says this about the one-line description
synopsis: Remember that in many situations the user may
12 matches
Mail list logo
