Debian bug report logs - #1712
Tex has no version number texbin does

Message received at debian-bugs-done:

From chiark.chu.cam.ac.uk!ian Fri Oct 20 18:35:32 1995
Return-Path: <ian@chiark.chu.cam.ac.uk>
Received: from pixar.com by mongo.pixar.com with smtp
	(Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0t6SqS-0005zVC; Fri, 20 Oct 95 18:35 PDT
Received: from artemis.chu.cam.ac.uk by pixar.com with SMTP id AA10495
  (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for debian-bugs-done-pipe@mongo.pixar.com); Fri, 20 Oct 1995 18:35:03 -0700
Received: from chiark.chu.cam.ac.uk by artemis.chu.cam.ac.uk with smtp
	(Smail3.1.29.1 #33) id m0t6Spz-0007uOC; Sat, 21 Oct 95 02:35 BST
Received: by chiark.chu.cam.ac.uk
	id m0t6Spj-0002aWC
	(Debian /\oo/\ Smail3.1.29.1 #29.33); Sat, 21 Oct 95 02:34 BST
Message-Id: <m0t6Spj-0002aWC@chiark.chu.cam.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 95 02:34 BST
From: Ian Jackson <ian@chiark.chu.cam.ac.uk>
To: debian-bugs-done@Pixar.com,
        Debian developers list <debian-devel@pixar.com>
Subject: Re: Bug#1712: Tex has no version number texbin does

Erick Branderhorst writes ("Bug#1712: Tex has no version number texbin does"):
> [...]
> 
> It might be usefull to let the provides packages have the same version
> number as the providing package, or if a specific version number is
> given in the provides line providing that version number.

The only sensible thing, I think, would be to have providing packages
have to specify a version number in their Provides.

I deliberately didn't do this, because I didn't think it would be
useful.

I originally intended virtual packages to work as Bill suggests:

Bill Mitchell writes ("Virtual Packages and version numbering"):
> Virtual packages were originally proposed, as I recall, to provide
> a means for alternative packages which conflict with one another
> but seek to provide the same facility to declare that they each
> provide that facility so that other packages could declare
> dependency on the facility rather than on the packages.  [...]

(And other similar situations, yes.)

In this case, as Bill notes, there is no need for version numbering.

> [...]
> In practice, virtual packages seem to be actually being used to
> provide one or more aliases for one single installing package
> providing a facility which is not also provided by a conflicting
> package.  Eric's suggestion would seem to be useful in this use of
> virtual packages.

The reason why packages need aliases (apart from the one in your first
paragraph above) is either because the concrete package names are part
of the internal structure, which may be rearranged by the package
maintainer at some point, or because the package names have changed
and the old names have to be supported for the benefit of older
packages.

In the case of `hiding' of internal structure, programs that need a
specific version of the actual packages in question are sufficiently
closely linked that they can use the concrete package name.

In the case of rearrangement, there is no sense in using version
numbers.

I'm working from the premise that only closely-related packages need
to know about each others' version numbers.  This seems to me to be
fairly accurate.

It's true that I could add this feature to dpkg, but the
conflict/dependency semantics are quite complicated enough already.
Adding new complexity here without a good reason seems to me to be
inviting trouble, both in terms of implementation bugs in dpkg and
dselect (there is a lot of quite hairy code involved here) and in
terms of problems caused by package maintainers misunderstanding
things.

We need a manual that documents things so that package maintainers
don't report things like this as bugs.  I'm closing this one.

Ian.

Message received at debian-bugs:

From fgg.eur.nl!branderhorst Fri Oct 20 07:32:33 1995
Return-Path: <branderhorst@fgg.eur.nl>
Received: from pixar.com by mongo.pixar.com with smtp
	(Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0t6IUn-0006CRC; Fri, 20 Oct 95 07:32 PDT
Received: from mailgate.eur.nl by pixar.com with SMTP id AA21205
  (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for debian-bugs-pipe@mongo.pixar.com); Fri, 20 Oct 1995 07:31:58 -0700
Received: from hp750.fgg.eur.nl by mailgate.eur.nl (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA16199; Fri, 20 Oct 95 15:32:13 +0100
Message-Id: <9510201432.AA16199@mailgate.eur.nl>
Received: by hp750.fgg.eur.nl
	(1.38.193.4/16.2) id AA09399; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 15:36:41 +0100
From: Erick Branderhorst <branderhorst@fgg.eur.nl>
Subject: Tex has no version number texbin does
To: debian-bugs@pixar.com
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 95 15:36:41 MET
Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85]


Package: tex
Version: unknown

Because of the changes in the TeX directory structure since a few
releases of TeX (related) packages, I thought adding a (general)
depends line in the xypic package would be smart. I thought it would
even be better if I add a version number with it:

Depends: tex (>3.1415-4)

However, during installation an error message comes up indicating that
TeX is not installed. This is probably because of the version number
which is checked and which is not reported by the package tex. The tex
package (without a version number) is a package provided by texbin
(with a version number).

It might be usefull to let the provides packages have the same version
number as the providing package, or if a specific version number is
given in the provides line providing that version number.

# dpkg -s tex
Package: tex
Status: purge ok not-installed
Priority: optional
Section: tex

# dpkg -s tebin
Package: texbin
Status: install ok installed
Priority: standard
Section: tex
Maintainer: Nils Rennebarth <nils@nus.pan-net.de>
Version: 3.1415
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Revision: 4
~~~~~~~~~~~
Provides: tex
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Depends: texlib (>1.0-3), metafont, kpathsea
[deleted]

Erick
--
Erick Branderhorst@heel.fgg.eur.nl +31-10-4635142
Department of General Surgery (Intensive Care) University Hospital Rotterdam NL