On Sat, Sep 04, 2010 at 01:30:24PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 14:13:09 -0700, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
>
> > unblock ltspfs/0.7-2
thanks for the comments.
> autom4te.cache/output.0 | 511
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
> autom4te.cache/output.1 | 511
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
> autom4te.cache/requests | 2
> autom4te.cache/traces.0 | 38 +--
> autom4te.cache/traces.1 | 8
>
> Why is this crap in the source package?
it's in the upstream tarballs... a lot of unfortunate noise, yes.
> -Conflicts: ldm (<= 2:0.1~bzr20071217-1)
> +Breaks: ldm (<= 2:0.1~bzr20071217-1)
> +Replaces: ldm (<= 2:0.1~bzr20071217-1)
>
> -Conflicts: ltspfsd (<= 0.5.11-1)
> +Breaks: ltspfsd (<= 0.5.11-1)
> +Replaces: ltspfsd (<= 0.5.11-1)
>
> Why is this correct? Was the upgrade path from lenny tested?
ltspfsd took over some files that were formerly in ldm and ltspfsd-core took
over some files from ltspfsd. so i was attempting to comply with debian-policy
"7.6.1. Overwriting files in other packages":
Normally, `Breaks' should be used in conjunction with `Replaces'.[1]
For example, if a package `foo' is split into `foo' and `foo-data'
starting at version 1.2-3, `foo-data' would have the fields
Replaces: foo (<< 1.2-3)
Breaks: foo (<< 1.2-3)
apparently, it wasn't strictly needed; the Conflicts is actually sufficient to
handle upgrades without resulting in file conflicts. Breaks+Replaces also works
for upgrading from lenny.
should i prepare another upload with a patch removing the autom4te.cache/*
files and switching back to Conflicts?
live well,
vagrant
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
