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" :) http://lintian.debian.org/tags/conflicts-with-version.html However all Lintian warnings stem from the policy and at http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#s-replaces 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. Cheers, Markus
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature