Hi, On Sat, Oct 06, 2012 at 06:59:15PM +0200, Andreas Beckmann wrote: > > 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:
you are comparing apples with pies and you are needlessly hanging on to the policy *example* to 100%.. #53 is also for the foo/foo-data thing. Which is clear here: foo needs foo-datas stuff so if foo-data didn't break foo the old foo wouldn't work anymore as the files got replaces. But that's not the case here. This is not a partly replace as in the example in the policy but a *complete* one. > That package is now non-functional, so we *need* a Breaks or similar. The old package does not need to be functional anymore. libgraphite3-2 contains a symlink for the old SONAME and Provides: libgraphite2-2.0.0 so a) the r-deps have their dependency fullfilled and b) the r-deps still work. And Downgrades (where this would matter that removing libgraphite3-2 leaves a non-functional libgraphite2-2.0.0) are not supprted. > Or a transitional package. Overkill. And not used/needed for other cases like this. Regards, Rene -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
