This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-apps
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: [RFC] 1.7 Packaging: Obsolete packages
On Jul 25 11:40, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > | I'm not sure if there's really a big difference between these two points.
> > | Since we're using two different installation directories, we can get rid
> > | of old cruft, if we just look carefully what's still used and what not.
> >
> > The difference is if I want to reorganize a package when I rebuild it
> > for 1.7, e.g. right now I have:
> >
> > pcre => pcre, libpcre0, pcre-devel, pcre-doc
> >
> > If I want to rename pcre-devel to libpcre-devel, then normally I would
> > need an empty _obsolete pcre-devel package which deps libpcre-devel to
> > make the upgrade smooth. That wouldn't be necessary if we don't support
> > upgrading to 1.7 in the same installation.
> >
> > That may seem like a trivial example, but a transition like X11R6 to
> > X11R7 would be a lot bigger.
>
> Nice example. Still, for now we should assume that we go the upgrade
> path. I'm going to investigate the impact of a clean cut in the next
> couple of days.
What if we add an "obsoletes:" line to setup.{ini,hint}?
The idea is that you don't have to provide empty replacement packages
for the old packages anymore, and setup removes all packages noted in
the "obsoletes:" line before installing the new package, in the same
step as when replaing old versions of the same package.
Would that work? Wouldn't that ease the transition to new package
schemes a lot?
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat