Bug#578854: New workding for Conflicts, Breaks, and related sections
Kurt Roeckx <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 11:07:33AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Normally a <tt>Breaks</tt> entry will have an "earlier than"
>> version clause; such a <tt>Breaks</tt> is introduced in the
>> - version of an (implicit or explicit) dependency which
>> - violates an assumption or reveals a bug in earlier versions
>> - of the broken package. This use of <tt>Breaks</tt> will
>> - inform higher-level package management tools that broken
>> - package must be upgraded before the new one.
>> + version of an (implicit or explicit) dependency which violates
>> + an assumption or reveals a bug in earlier versions of the broken
>> + package, or which takes over a file from earlier versions of the
>> + broken package. This use of <tt>Breaks</tt> will inform
>> + higher-level package management tools that broken package must
>> + be upgraded before the new one.
> The word broken there might be a little missleading, since nothing
> broken, and it's just used to force an upgrade of the other package.
Changed to "the package named in <tt>Breaks</tt>".
>> + breakage). In other words, if a version number is specified,
>> + this is a request to ignore all <tt>Provides</tt> for that
>> + package name and consider only real packages. The package
>> + manager will assume that a package which package which provides
> That should probably be removed.
Good catch, thanks. Reworded.
>> + Normally, <tt>Breaks</tt> should be used in conjunction
>> + with <tt>Replaces</tt>.<footnote>
>> + To see why <tt>Breaks</tt> is required in addition
> That's probably a too strong word, specially since you have a
> should there.
Changed to "normally needed."
>> For example, if a package <package>foo</package> is split
>> into <package>foo</package> and <package>foo-data</package>
>> - starting at version 1.2-3, <package>foo-data</package> should
>> - have the field
>> + starting at version 1.2-3, <package>foo-data</package> would
>> + have the fields
>> <example compact="compact">
>> Replaces: foo (<< 1.2-3)
>> +Breaks: foo (<< 1.2-3)
>> + </example compact="compact">
>> + in its control file. The new version of the
>> + package <package>foo</package> would normally have the field
>> + <example>
>> +Depends: foo-data (>= 1.2-3)
> I'm not sure what it does exactly, but you've created one example
> with compact, the other without. And closing the example probably
> doesn't need to set the compact.
Yeah, added the attribute to the wrong line. Fixed.
> I can see why which this breaks in the "foo-data" package is useful, but
> find it non-obvious, and currently see no beter way to get the same
The non-obviousness is one of the reasons why I wanted to be sure to
document it, since I'd never understood this personally.
Russ Allbery (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>