[csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs bacula, bacula_client, bacula_client_(...)

Philip Brown phil at bolthole.com
Sat May 14 16:19:00 CEST 2011

On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 5:39 AM, Ben Walton <bwalton at opencsw.org> wrote:
> Excerpts from Philip Brown's message of Fri May 13 16:08:31 -0400 2011:
>> the way you are doing it... if they do an upgrade, it will remove
>> something that they are potentially using. with no replacement.  I
>> dont think thats good for users.
> If I just drop it from the catalog, that leaves a file conflict with
> the new director package.

well that's a good point. but its not the only thing to be considered...

> Additionally, bgnome-console is no longer
> supported as per --enable-gnome.  Thus it needs to be removed.

There is a difference between "is not compiled any more" and "does not
work any more"
Does it "not work" any more?
(if it truly does not work, then the rest of this email is invalid)
I'm guessing that it does, but it is just "obsolete". After all, its
just a front end wrapper.

There is also something I didnt think of previously: things renamed as
"_stub", get removed by pkg_util, I believe you said.

Again, this is not a good way to treat our users, if they actually
want the binaries.
Which they presumably did, because they had to explicitly type
(install) bacula_gnome  to get it. It is not pulled in by anything

I know its not your favourite thing to do, but how about this:
extract just the actual "bacula-gnome" stuff, from the old package
that does not conflict, and make a new, binary-only package for
"bacula-gnome". By all means still keep the "Obsolete (not supported
any more)" in the description.
Then you can forget about it for future upgrades?

I apologize for the extended back and forth about this, and that I
didnt realize this sooner.
Please keep in mind that this isnt about "us", it's about our users.

More information about the pkgsubmissions mailing list