On 2012-10-06 18:05, Rene Engelhard wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, Oct 06, 2012 at 05:29:56PM +0200, Andreas Beckmann wrote: >> during a test with piuparts I noticed your package is missing a Breaks >> or Conflicts relation with libgraphite2-2.0.0. > > No, IMHO it isn't. Read the policy 7.6 again.[1] > Replaces: is fully correct for replacing files in older packages. > > Yes, you can argue it's a case of 7.6.2, but see below.
No, I'm arguing with footnote 53: # apt-get install libgraphite2-2.0.0 # apt-get install libgraphite2-3 # apt-get remove libgraphite2-3 # dpkg -L libgraphite2-2.0.0 /. /usr /usr/lib /usr/share /usr/share/doc /usr/share/doc/libgraphite2-2.0.0 /usr/share/doc/libgraphite2-2.0.0/copyright /usr/share/doc/libgraphite2-2.0.0/changelog.Debian.gz /usr/share/doc/libgraphite2-2.0.0/changelog.gz /usr/share/lintian /usr/share/lintian/overrides /usr/share/lintian/overrides/libgraphite2-2.0.0 That package is now non-functional, so we *need* a Breaks or similar. Or a transitional package. >> 0m46.5s ERROR: FAIL: debsums reports modifications inside the chroot: >> /usr/lib/libgraphite2.so.2.0.0 > > Then that's a bug in the checking. Of course the new package replaces > the old file with a symlink. That could be. Either debsums or dpkg or both. The file was still in .md5sums, but no longer in .list And that bug discovered the above problem :-) Andreas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
