Sorting the jack build-dependency mess

[Felipe Sateler]

On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 07:08, Adrian Knoth <adi at drcomp.erfurt.thur.de> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 08:18:23PM -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote:
>
>> > We need not change anything now, just use a more meaningful tag than
>> > "" next time we want to bump.
>
>> I think this makes most sense. (although it does require renaming
>> libjack-dev to libjack-jackd1-dev and making it Provide: libjack-dev).
>
> Is that required now? I don't think so. Policy 7.5:
>
> --- policy ---
>     If there are both concrete and virtual packages of the same name, then
>     the dependency may be satisfied (or the conflict caused) by either the
>     concrete package with the name in question or any other concrete
>     package which provides the virtual package with the name in question.
>     This is so that, for example, supposing we have
>          Package: foo
>          Depends: bar
>     and someone else releases an enhanced version of the `bar' package
>     they can say:
>          Package: bar-plus
>          Provides: bar
>     and the `bar-plus' package will now also satisfy the dependency for
>     the `foo' package.
> --- end of policy ---
>
> And we still have versioned build dependencies. Quoting policy-7.5
> again:
>
> --- policy ---
>     If a relationship field has a version number attached, only real
>     packages will be considered to see whether the relationship is
>     satisfied (or the prohibition violated, for a conflict or breakage).
>     In other words, if a version number is specified, this is a request to
>     ignore all `Provides' for that package name and consider only real
>     packages.  The package manager will assume that a package providing
>     that virtual package is not of the "right" version.
> --- end of policy ---
>
> While this would still cause trouble with the few packages you've
> mentioned (I'm going to fix calf in a second) for those who have
> installed libjack-jackd2-dev, it won't do any harm on the buildds.
>
>
> So long story short: it seems the only change reguired right now is the
> updated jackd2 package with libjack-jackd2-dev "Provides: libjack-dev".
>
> And that's already built and waiting for an upload on my system. Just
> give me the "OK" in case you agree. ;)
>

Yes. But when libjack${tag}-dev appears, libjack-dev needs to be
renamed to something less generic, to allow people to require jackd1
if they really need to.



-- 

Saludos,
Felipe Sateler