Daniel Kobras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Steve wondered why people suggest package relationships that cause > problems during upgrades. I claimed that policy may well be the source > of the confusion. The fact that you can read different meanings into it > isn't quite the point. Well, actually it proves the point of policy > being ambiguous here.
ACK, it seems to be misunderstood, so the wording can be improved... >> > Both documents should probably be updated, so which >> > one do you like best: >> > >> > Method A >> > >> > Package: oldpkg >> > Depends: newpkg >> > Version: 1.0 >> > Description: transitional dummy package >> > >> > Package: newpkg >> > Replaces: oldpkg (<< 1.0) >> >> Why no Provides: here? > > I don't think it's mandatory in this scenario, unlike the method > described below where newpkg hijacks the /usr/share/doc/oldpkg symlink. It's not mandatory, but it helps: If a third package depended on oldpkg, it will probably also be happy with newpkg, and this way it continues to work even if the dummy package is removed. Or in other words: Without the Provides it's not possible to remove the dummy package as soon as there's one reverse Depends on oldpkg. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
