[Pkg-octave-devel] Bug#463039: Bug#463039: why does octave3.0 provide: octave2.9?

[Steve Langasek]

On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 03:32:27PM +0100, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> * Steve Langasek <vorlon at debian.org> [2008-01-28 17:29]:

> > The octave3.0 package in unstable has the following provides line:

> >   Provides: octave, octave2.9

> > I don't see any possible way that this can be correct.  Either octave3.0 is
> > 100% compatible with octave2.9, and the source/binary package name should
> > *not* have been changed for the new upstream version; or it is not 100%
> > compatible, and should not have any such Provides since it may cause
> > octave2.9 reverse-dependencies to install octave3.0 instead of the real
> > octave2.9 and then fail to work.

> > In practice, most of the reverse-depends of octave2.9 have versioned
> > dependencies on octave2.9, so most of these will refuse to accept octave3.0
> > as a replacement.  And octave3.0 also *conflicts* with octave2.9, so they're
> > not exactly co-installable either.  Something looks very wrong here.

> Thanks, your analysis is probably right but we are in the middle of the
> octave2.9 -> octave3.0 transition.  The octave2.9 series was considered as
> pre-releases for octave3.0.  We already asked for removal of octave2.9 from
> the archive [1] and I think this mess will be cleared up in the near future.

Well, note that I don't consider removal of the existing octave2.9 packages
to clear it up.  The octave3.0 Provides: is still wrong, either because this
package does not provide identical functionality or because it's proof of a
gratuitous name change that breaks most of the existing
reverse-dependencies.

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek at ubuntu.com                                     vorlon at debian.org