Le Sunday 22 April 2012 08:02:42, Christian Marillat a écrit :
> Normaly I tested all package who depends on libxine2 but I missed
> libxine2-xvdr because the package name start with libxine2.
ok.
> It is easy to see which packages come from my repository. Packages with
> -0.3 and -0.4
I was not aware of this convention. In fact, I've never noticed the subtle
difference in the debian_revision number. :-/
May be this would be the right place to clearly indicate the dmo origin with a
debian_revision like -0.3.dmo or -0.4.dmo ?
As a matter of fact, a similar scheme is used by jpackage.org [1]. All their
package release version (the redhat equivalent of debian_revision) ends with
.jpp5 (5 is for Rhel5). E.g. -2.jpp5
> 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
You're right, this package name suffix cannot be applied to librairies:
library dependencies with version break because "if a version number is
specified [ in a dependency ], this is a request to ignore all Provides for
that package name and consider only real packages."
All the best
Dominique
[1]
http://mirrors.dotsrc.org/jpackage/5.0/generic/free/repoview/
