On Wed, Jul 04, 2012 at 10:58:18PM +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> On 04/07/12 22:51, Stephen Kitt wrote:
> >Re-reading policy section 7 leads me to believe that the correct
> >approach is a Conflicts/Replaces relationship: mingw-w64-binutils-i686
>
> Breaks should be preferred over Conflicts in such case. (I'm not
> sure it makes a difference though).
I was under the impression that "Conflicts should be used when two
packages provide the same file and will continue to do so" (section
7.4, discussing Breaks v. Conflits) would mean that two packages
shipping the same file should conflict.
In any case the point is moot: binutils-mingw-w64-{i686,x86-64} don't
actually conflit with mingw32-binutils, I can't remember what led me
to add that - I was under the impression that they all shipped
conflicting ldscripts, but that isn't the case.
Once that's fixed though there remains a problem with mingw32-ocaml
itself:
[...]
Unpacking mingw-ocaml (from .../mingw-ocaml_3.12.1+debian2_i386.deb) ...
dpkg: error processing
/var/cache/apt/archives/mingw-ocaml_3.12.1+debian2_i386.deb (--unpack):
trying to overwrite '/usr/bin/flexlink', which is also in package
mingw32-ocaml 3.11.2+debian4
[...]
mingw-ocaml needs a Breaks/Replaces relationship with versions of
mingw32-ocaml older than the package split.
Regards,
Stephen
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
