On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 11:02:02AM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote: > Colin Watson wrote: > > However, in order to make buster → bullseye upgrades work properly, > > I think it's necessary to have bsdmainutils depend on bsdextrautils > > for at least one release cycle. Otherwise there may be a point > > during the upgrade where col isn't installed and so man will be > > broken; it's worth putting some effort into avoiding that because if > > the upgrade happens to break then users may need to consult man > > pages to work out what to do. The only reliable way I can think of > > to avoid this kind of problem is to have a hard dependency for a > > while as a transitional measure. > > Any idea how this scenario could unfold? I cannot imagine how it could > get there. What I will do, though, is add a "Breaks: man-db (<<2.9.3- > 1)" to bsdmainutils. Actually this is already in git.
Breaks only ensures that new bsdmainutils can't be unpacked until man-db is deconfigured. For example, it would still permit this plausible upgrade ordering, which AFAIK apt would have no particular reason to avoid: 1. deconfigure old man-db 2. unpack new bsdmainutils 3. configure new bsdmainutils 4. (piles of other stuff) 5. unpack bsdextrautils 6. unpack new man-db 7. configure bsdextrautils 8. configure man-db man would be broken between the end of step 1 and the end of step 5. I think this is undesirable and unnecessary. -- Colin Watson (he/him) [cjwat...@debian.org]
