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

Re: Comments regarding pink-pony_1.3.1-2_i386.changes

On 15.09.2013 19:33, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
> 2013/9/15 Markus Koschany <apo@gambaru.de>:
>> I had a brief look at pink-pony's control file and I think it is more
>> reasonable to use Breaks and Replaces instead of just Conflicts, so that
>> the package manager can find a better solution for an upgrade or
>> installation.
> I understand Breaks, but why Replaces?

I think the simplest but not necessarily most convincing argument is:
"because Lintian says so" :)


However all Lintian warnings stem from the policy and at


it says "Normally, Breaks should be used in conjunction with Replaces."
And there is also an example for splitting the package foo in foo and
foo-data and that's exactly what had to be done with pink-pony.

It basically boils down to the formula that Breaks and Replaces are the
relationship fields of choice if you need to move files from one binary
package to another binary package within the same source package and
that Conflicts is only mandatory in conjunction with Provides or when
two packages provide the same file and will continue to do so or when
you have to prevent simultaneous installation of two packages for
whatever the reason.

Perhaps Breaks and Replaces vs. Conflicts is merely a package manager
algorithm issue but for the sake of conformity, I think, it doesn't hurt
if we use Breaks and Replaces, after all that's what the piuparts folks
recommend in their bug reports as well. See
http://bugs.debian.org/718009 for example.



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: