Re: About the Breaks: field.

[Ian Jackson <ian@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

Guy writes:
> Conflicts is like a reverse Depends.  It affects package
> configuration.
> 
> Breaks is like a reverse Pre-Depends.  It affects package unpacking.

I think that's precisely backwards.  The rules are:

A -[pre-]depends-> B && more-than-unpacked(A)
    =implies=>
  installed(B)

( A -conflicts->B || B -conflicts-> A ) && more-than-config-files(A)
    =implies=>
  !more-than-config-files(B)

A -pre-depends-> B && more-than-config-files(A)
    =implies=>
  at-least-unpacked(B) &&
  was-configured-since-last-removed(B)

I propose for Breaks:

A -breaks->B && more-than-config-files(A)
    =implies=>
  !more-than-unpacked(B)

So Breaks will allow the the packages to coexist, but one will be
deconfigured (--auto-deconfigure) and hopefully upgraded later.
Conflicts doesn't allow the packages to coexist at all.

Ian.


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .