3

Usecase

The package gnome-core depends on gnome-shell-extensions >=3.14. I'd like to remove gnome-shell-extensions but to satisfy the dependency, I have to replace it with a dummy package. I'm using equivs for this to create a replacement dummy package for gnome-shell-extensions.

My equivs control file is as follows:

Section: misc Priority: optional Standards-Version: 3.9.2 Package: gnome-shell-extensions Version: 1.0 Maintainer: Me Myself <[email protected]> Provides: gnome-shell-extensions Architecture: all Description: gnome-shell-extensions dummy package to satisfy gnome dependencies 

Issue

The package built obviously provides gnome-shell-extensions, but even after installing it, apt still complains that gnome-core : depends on: gnome-shell-extensions (>= 3.14)

I understand that the Version field in the control file has nothing to do with it, as it only marks the version of the dummy package.

Workaround

I have successfully managed to fake the original package by using the original package name, i.e. Package: gnome-shell-extensions, but I'd rather keep the dummy package name.

Question

What do I have to do to satisfy the dependency gnome-shell-extensions >=3.14 while using another package that Provides: gnome-shell-extensions?

1 Answer 1

5

You should now be able to use versioned Provides::

Provides: gnome-shell-extensions (= 3.14.2-1) 

This is supported since dpkg 1.17.11, so since Debian 8 (Jessie). Debian Policy hasn’t been updated to take this possibility into account yet, so it still claims two things which are no longer correct:

  • Provides: can’t have a version constraint;
  • relationships with version constraints ignore virtual packages.

Bug #761219 tracks the documentation updates.

3
  • 1
    This means that debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html is outdated / wrong. Will file a bug or correct this myself. Commented Dec 29, 2016 at 19:04
  • 1
    Yes, I should have mentioned that. There's already a bug, #761219. Commented Dec 29, 2016 at 19:25
  • 1
    Thank you for pointing that out. OMG, it's open since 11 Sep 2014, i.e. more than 2 years... Commented Dec 30, 2016 at 9:06

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.