On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 02:05:13PM +0200, Daniel Kobras wrote:
> On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 04:12:31PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 11:22:51AM +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
> > > Steve Langasek schrieb:
> > > >>Package: oldpkg
> > > >>Depends: newpkg
> > > >>Description: transitional dummy package
> > > >>Package: newpkg
> > > >>Replaces: oldpkg
> > > >>Conflicts: oldpkg
> > > >>Description: ...
> > > >*NO* *NO* *NO* *NO* *NO*. Look closely at the package relationships
> > > >you've
> > > >specified. Why would you upload a package to the archive that *can
> > > >never
> > > >be installed*?
> > > Hm, that used to be a "magic" combination that would let dpkg do the
> > > right thing.
> > I've heard this stated before, but if it was ever true, it's definitely not
> > the case with apt (or with britney), and it's not mentioned in policy.
> It may well cause problems to britney, but policy section 7.5.2
> ('Replacing whole packages, forcing their removal') definitely mentions
> the behaviour of Replaces+Conflicts.
It explains Replaces+Conflicts. It does *not* say "create a dummy package
that can't be installed because it depends on the thing that conflicts it".
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
