Author: Chris Knadle Date: To: dmo-discussion Subject: Re: Suggestion: add -dmo suffix to package names
On Saturday, April 21, 2012 13:07:30, Dominique Dumont wrote:
... > So here's the suggestion: all packages from debian-multimedia should have a
> '-dmo' suffix (with proper conflict and provides statement).
>
> This would have several benefits:
> - avoid confusion between vanilla debian and dmo when logging bugs
> (like this 668831)
> - would enable users to cherry-pick between the 2 repos without using apt-
> pinning tricks
> - would avoid using epoch to distinguish between 2 repos
> - hightlight the fact that dmo packages often have a different feature set
> compared to debian vanilla packages (i.e. set of codecs)
>
> Of course , this idea has 2 major drawbacks:
> - all dmo packages must be reworked by Christian
> - users will have to install a new set of packages.
>
> Thoughts ?
Well -- thinking about this, this is what I see.
Packages on d-m.o seem to already have the -dmo name on the *Source* packages.
And I think there's a reason the -dmo tag isn't on the binary packages.
See, if the binary packages had -dmo in the name, then they wouldn't conflict
with the non-dmo packages, which sounds like what you're suggesting. Okay, so
where does that stop? Wouldn't that reuqire -dmo named libraries? How would
packages in Debian proper use the -dmo libs if that were so?
And if you don't do libs with -dmo in the name, then the packages would
conflict, in which case there's no point in making binaries with the -dmo name
in the first place, at least as far as I can see. :-/
If the above doesn't jive with what you had in mind, see if you can explain
your idea further as to more specifically where you think the -dmo named
binary packages would work.
