Dominique Dumont <domi.dumont@???> writes:
> Hello
>
> With #668831, I had another instance of confusion between packages provided by
> Debian versus those provided by debian-multimedia: long story short, dmo xine
> packages are already multi-arch and debian xine packages are lagging behind.
> This is a transition issue, made more complex by the fact that transitioning
> packages come from 2 repos.
Normaly I tested all package who depends on libxine2 but I missed
libxine2-xvdr because the package name start with libxine2.
[...]
> So, an issue with the current orgranisation is: once packages are installed,
> it's not obvious wether a package comes from dmo or vanilla debian. Sure,
> using apt-cache policy or reading /usr/doc will give a hint. But these are
> esasy to overlook when hunting for a bug. As I did.
It is easy to find my packages with only the number version. *All* my
packages have a debian version (the number after the -) who start with
0.x This version number scheme don't exist *at all* in Debian.
I'm doing that since I started my repository in 2001.
It is easy to see which packages come from my repository. Packages with
-0.3 and -0.4
,----
| ii libavutil51 5:0.10.2-0.3
| ii libc6 2.13-27
| ii libxine2 1:1.2.1-0.4
| ii libxine2-ffmpeg 1:1.2.1-0.4
`----
Otherwise I've a big doubt if users read all the dependencies when there
are doing a bug report.
> So here's the suggestion: all packages from debian-multimedia should have a
> '-dmo' suffix (with proper conflict and provides statement).
This doesn't work at all and probably break an installation.
A provides field should provides a *virtual* package name and not an
existing package name. See debian policy paragraph 7.5
Christian
