Cyril Brulebois wrote: > If I were to be a package manager, I guess I could decide to remove > (temporarily) one of those packages, upgrade the other one, and then > install the former in this new version. And it looks like that's what > apt-get does: > | r...@kbsd:/# apt-get install -s tex-common texlive-common|egrep > 'tex(|live)-common'|egrep -v '^[[:space:]]' > | Remv tex-common [1.20] [texlive-common ] > | Inst texlive-common [2007.dfsg.2-4] (2009-4 Debian:unstable) [] > | Inst tex-common [1.20] (2.03 Debian:unstable) > | Conf tex-common (2.03 Debian:unstable) > | Conf texlive-common (2009-4 Debian:unstable) > > I'm not sure there's anything which speaks against doing so. > Yes, this is a solution, but cupt doesn't consider it by default, because of reasons explained in [1], in short: new 'tex-common' package may have maintainer scripts which may have some actions for upgrades from older 'tex-common' versions, and they will not be called in such a sequence.
I can add tex-common and/or texlive-common to the list of broken packages which are allowed to 'remove,unpack,configure' instead of 'unpack,configure', but for me it is last-case solution. I have the impression from the Norbert's mails that packages should have mutual Breaks rather than mutual Conflicts. [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=551831#15 and http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=551831#16 -- Eugene V. Lyubimkin aka JackYF, JID: jackyf.devel(maildog)gmail.com C++/Perl developer, Debian Developer
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
