Re: Bug#3085: bsdmainutils uses inappropriate `Conflicts bsdutils (<<...)'
> > I don't think this accomplishes what I intended. The difference that
> > I'm looking for from the current Conflicts (as I understand it) is
> > subtle. That difference is that if one package is upgraded or
> > installed, then the conflicting packages must be upgraded as well.
> > Careful use of Replaces should make it possible to avoid requiring
> > packages to be installed/upgraded in a specific order.
>
> Replaces is the wrong thing to use: it has entirely the wrong
> semantics - when used together with Conflicts it causes the package
> which is the `target' of Replaces to be removed, without requiring the
> user to instruct dpkg to do this !
Right. I realized this wouldn't work shortlt after I'd sent it and
gone to bed.
> > Where I think this difference would have the most useful impact is in
> > dselect's conflict resolution screen. Instead of simply informing the
> > user that package B conflicts with package A, dselect could say that
> > package B must either be upgraded to the required version or it must
> > be removed. Perhaps the current meaning of Conflicts (<<version)
> > could be extended to handle this, but I'll leave that up to you.
>
> dselect already handles this kind of thing when you say Depends
> (>>version) or whatever; adding Breaks semantics wouldn't be that
> hard. (Post 1.1 though.)
Now we've come full circle. The whole reason I brought this up was
that Depends (>>version) doesn't work in those cases where it's also
OK to not have the other version installed.
David
--
David Engel Optical Data Systems, Inc.
david@ods.com 1101 E. Arapaho Road
(214) 234-6400 Richardson, TX 75081
Reply to: