Re: Silently breaking on upgrade
The Wanderer <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> As to why it's listed as being a conflict, my understanding is that the
> upstream e16 used to be called enlightenment - that upstream, in fact,
> considers them to be in some sense different versions of the same
> package. (This is part of why it seems to me that there *should* - in
> the sense which is similar to "must" - be a migration path. That's a
> separate argument, however.) I seem to recall that the maintainer said
> that he had been being pressed by the e16 people to have Debian go along
> with that name change, but I don't think I know any of the details.
This isn't really a good reason for a conflict when there's no upgrade
path from the old package to the new package, for precisely the reason
that you ran into.
Russ Allbery (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>