Re: Package naming rules.

[Buddha Buck <phaedrus@dreamscape.com>]

> In message <[🔎] 199605071714.KAA25871@bb29c.mdd.comm.mot.com>, Bill Mitchell writes:
> >recently remarked, renaming packages is a pain.  I don't think that we
> >should lightly make a change which would require renaming 77 packages
> >which are currently in distribution.
> 
> I don't understand why people keep saying renaming packages is hard ---
> REPLACES: + CONFLICTS: = renamed package.  Am I missing something?

Does replaces+conflicts imply provides?

Specifically, if a depends on foo, and foobar replaces+conflicts with 
foo, can I replace foo with foobar without uninstalling a?

If not, then (I think) foobar should replaces+conflicts+provides foo, 
and then foo would end up acting as a virtual package name, which is 
probably not what we want, either.
-- 
     Buddha Buck                      bmbuck@acsu.buffalo.edu
"She was infatuated with their male prostitutes, whose members were
like those of donkeys and whose seed came in floods like that of
stallions."  -- Ezekiel 23:20