On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 10:45:45AM +0200, Ondrej Novy wrote:
> Hi,
>
> út 18. 9. 2018 v 10:30 odesílatel Lars Wirzenius <l...@liw.fi> napsal:
>
> Would Conflicts work here?
>
>
> Conflicts is just more strict Breaks,
Eh, no.
> for example when files are overwritten. This is not case and Breaks
> "is enough".
"Breaks" means "will cause the other package to fail". That isn't the
case here. Additionally, Breaks isn't supported very well by some tools,
so it's better to be avoided.
"Conflicts" *can* mean "shares pathnames with other package", but it
doesn't have to; it can also mean "doesn't work well with other
package". Unfortunately, versioned Conflicts don't always have the
desired effect of "ensuring package X is upgraded before package Y", so
you can't rely on it in that case.
You're claiming that the systemd support of your package won't work
correctly unless you have a particular version of systemd on your
system. If that's the case, then you should Depend on the correct
version of systemd. If you also support other init systems, you can add
an alternate dependency on those other systems; or you can use
Recommends: rather than Depends: if you don't want it to be absolute.
The other options may sound better philosophically, but in practice they
turn out to be worse choices.
--
Could you people please use IRC like normal people?!?
-- Amaya Rodrigo Sastre, trying to quiet down the buzz in the DebConf 2008
Hacklab
