Fwd: Bug#688299: libpolyorb3: using diversions in M-A: same packages is a bad idea
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I'd like to your advices about this bug in order to solve it. As far as
I remember the Breaks/Replace libpolyorb2 by libpolyorb3 isn't an option ?
xavier
- -------- Message original --------
Sujet: Bug#688299: libpolyorb3: using diversions in M-A: same packages
is a bad idea
Date de renvoi : Fri, 21 Sep 2012 08:30:01 +0000
De (renvoi) : Andreas Beckmann <debian@abeckmann.de>
Pour (renvoi) : debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org
Copie (renvoi) : Xavier Grave <xavier.grave@ipno.in2p3.fr>
Date : Fri, 21 Sep 2012 10:26:30 +0200
De : Andreas Beckmann <debian@abeckmann.de>
Répondre à : Andreas Beckmann <debian@abeckmann.de>, 688299@bugs.debian.org
Pour : Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
Package: libpolyorb3
Version: 2.8~20110207-4
Severity: normal
Hi,
using diversions in M-A: same packages seems to be a bad idea. I expect
the following sequence to fail (but can't test it currently because
gnat-4.6-base is not yet M-A co-installable).
have the ancient libpolyorb2 installed
apt-get install libpolyorb3:amd64
apt-get install libpolyorb3:i386
apt-get remove libpolyorb3:i386
# now postrm will remove the diversion and BOOOM
But why would you need this diversion anyway? The file conflict
according to #673982 is with libpolyorb2 which is only in squeeze.
So having (maybe versioned)
Breaks: libpolyorb2
Replaces: libpolyorb2
should be sufficient to take over the file and get rid of the obsolete
library.
And don't forget to cleanup the obsolete diversion - postinst would
be a suitable place.
Andreas
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/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=67Br
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: