Hi Mathias, On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 01:32:51AM +0000, Mathias Gibbens wrote: > Incus hasn't yet been part of a stable release. If it were, I would > be more concerned about this edge case bug. As it is, people installing > Incus via bookworm-backports (including myself on several machines), > are by definition tracking a package version from the next eventual > release. Reviewing Policy sections 7.4 & 7.6.1 make it pretty clear > that Breaks+Replaces is the preferred way to move files between > packages, and using just Conflicts seems hacky for an issue that > doesn't affect trixie or sid.
I concur that the Conflicts approach is hacky. The whole /usr-move is hacky, but that's what we as a project reached consensus on. Using Conflicts here is cheap on your end and those Conflicts will never be relevant to any user who initially installs incus on trixie or upgrades from trixie now. Policy says that Replaces should be used, but the /usr-merge has violated so many fundamentals of dpkg that Replaces just do not work in practice. We've upgraded Replaces to Conflicts e.g. in systemd, libvirt and a number of other packages. The main reason we consider these hacks as a good solution is that they go away over time. Two releases later and your delete them whereas other approaches for resolving the /usr-merge would have added permanent changes to dpkg and other tools. In hacking the migration, we can eventually get rid of all the hacky code. Does that make you reconsider your choice? Helmut
