On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 06:51:34PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > But it's also overly aggressive, since it forces 'a' version 2 to be > > unpacked first, *before* unpacking package 'b' - in which case, what do > > we need the Replaces: for at all? This is really a workaround for the > > fact that Breaks: didn't exist at the time this part of Policy was > > written. With Breaks: a (<< 2) and Replaces: a (<< 2), we can force the > > upgrade of 'a' in tandem with 'b', but without imposing the unpack > > ordering constraints that cause such big problems for dist-upgrades.
> Ah, aha. (This should definitely be explained in Policy, at least in a > footnote.) Yes, I agree. > So that implies that, for the typical case of moving a file from one > package to another, we should use Replaces/Breaks, and reserve Conflicts > for actual file conflicts between unrelated packages (such as libkrb5-dev > and heimdal-dev). Is that correct? That's how I understand it, yes. > I see some discussion in the bug log about problems in dpkg that cause it > to possibly do the wrong thing with Replaces/Breaks and downgrades, but so > far as I can tell from the follow-up from Guillem, the remaining issues > aren't really specific to Breaks and also apply to Conflicts. Right. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
