Debian bug report logs - #1712 Tex has no version number texbin does Package: tex ; Reported by: Erick Branderhorst ; Done: Ian Jackson . ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Message received at debian-bugs-done: From chiark.chu.cam.ac.uk!ian Fri Oct 20 18:35:32 1995 Return-Path: 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: Date: Sat, 21 Oct 95 02:34 BST From: Ian Jackson To: debian-bugs-done@Pixar.com, Debian developers list 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. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Notification sent to Erick Branderhorst : Bug acknowledged by developer. Full text available. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Reply sent to Ian Jackson : You have taken responsibility. Full text available. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Message received at debian-bugs: From fgg.eur.nl!branderhorst Fri Oct 20 07:32:33 1995 Return-Path: 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 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 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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Acknowledgement sent to Erick Branderhorst : New bug report received and forwarded. Full text available. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Report forwarded to debian-devel@pixar.com : Bug#1712 ; Package tex . Full text available. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Ian Jackson / iwj10@thor.cam.ac.uk , with the debian-bugs tracking mechanism This page last modified 07:43:01 GMT Wed 01 Nov