Rene Engelhard wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 10:16:06PM +0200, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote: >> No, no one package manager can upgrade packages in this situation directly, >> in >> theory. See http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=560896#74. >> libapt-based package managers upgrade them indirectly silently, cupt - does >> not, by default. > > And why does cupt that different? I see no reason to break other > packages by changing behaviour there. But anyway... Because silently indirectly upgrading package may silently may silently break package maintainer script which catch upgrade situations.
>> If Replaces don't make sense there, then Conflicts, probably, too. > > Eh, no, read again what Replaces: has for semantics in the policy (7.3 and > 7.6.1) > Replaces: just says that it replaces files. Which here obviously is not > the case. (Or for replacing packages completely with > Conflicts/Replaces/Provides > as in 7.6.2) I am pretty sure I understand what package dependency fields mean. I however have no good idea about all interdependencies within openoffice.org packages, they are very complex, without doubts. I explained why cupt treats mutual conflicts as error. If you agree - fix the dependencies as you want, I just proposed some variants. If you disagree - reassign back, I will add openoffice.org to the list of packages to be upgraded indirectly. -- Eugene V. Lyubimkin aka JackYF, JID: jackyf.devel(maildog)gmail.com C++/Perl developer, Debian Developer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
