Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Please do not CC the APT team on follow-ups --- it looks like APT > already does the right thing here (sorry for the noise!). > > I wrote: > >> The xz-utils package in experimental Conflicts/Replaces/Provides the >> pseudo-essential package lzma. I think this should be fine, since >> installing it only involves overwriting the lzma package rather than >> removing it. > [...] >> Am I misunderstanding policy here? > > I was. Using Conflicts disallows files from xz-utils and lzma from > coexisting even during an upgrade, making an upgrade impossible. > > What I meant to achieve is accomplished with Replaces/Provides without > the Conflicts. Once xz-utils has written over all the files of lzma, > lzma would be marked as uninstalled, so normally the two packages > would not be installed at once. > > But how to ensure all the files of lzma are overwritten, when newer > versions could always add more files? I worry because it might be > confusing to a system administrator to see the lzma package installed > when most of its important files are provided by another package. Such > an administrator might blame bugs in xz-utils on the lzma package. > > Advice? Seems slightly ugly, but 'Breaks: lzma' may help.
-- Eugene V. Lyubimkin aka JackYF, JID: jackyf.devel(maildog)gmail.com C++/Perl developer, Debian Maintainer
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
