[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#582423: tech-ctte: reaffirm that violating Debian Policy deserves RC bug

Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Fri, 21 May 2010, Ian Jackson wrote:

>>> Rename A to B           | optional make A       | Conflicts: A
>>>                         | dummy/transitional    | Replaces: A
>>>                         |   Depends: B          | Provides: A optional
>> I think this is right but I'd like Raphael or someone to confirm.
>> This contradicts what I wrote in my proposed policy fragment about a
>> package not conflicting/replacing/providing a single virtual package.
> Yes this is right. Providing the old package name is very common to avoid
> breaking existing (unversioned) dependencies.

I suspect Conflicts: A (<< new version), Replaces: A (<< new version)
is usually more appropriate.

If you use an unqualified Conflicts: A, then the sysadmin cannot build
a transitional package with equivs to satisfy versioned dependencies.
Not to mention that the packager herself cannot build and upload a
transitional package.


Reply to: