Re: potential mass bug filing: sysvinit dependency

[Vincent Danjean <vdanjean.ml@free.fr>]

Lionel Elie Mamane a écrit :
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 01:30:19PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> 
>> This may be a good time to remind maintainers that often a versioned
>> conflict may be more appropriate than a versioned dependency.
> 
> This seems natural to me, but the policy contains this discouraging
> language:
> 
>  A Conflicts entry should almost never have an "earlier than" version
>  clause. This would prevent dpkg from upgrading or installing the
>  package which declared such a conflict until the upgrade or removal
>  of the conflicted-with package had been completed.
> 
> I'm not exactly sure what is being said here. The second sentence
> seems to be *exactly* the effect I would seek when doing a versioned
> "earlier than" conflict. So I don't understand why the policy says one
> should "almost never" have one.

Perhaps the problem is with the word "completed" (ie not "initiated").
This means that the new package (with versioned conflict) cannot be
unpacked until the old conflicting one has been removed (with execution
of post-remove) or fully upgraded (ie unpacked AND configured).
Note: All of this is speculation from me. I can be wrong.

  Best regards,
    Vincent