Re: sysvinit vs. new powerd...
Miquel van Smoorenburg writes ("Re: sysvinit vs. new powerd..."):
...
> The powerd control file would then have something like:
>
> Package: foo-powerd
> Provides: powerd
> Depends: sysvinit (>= 2.63-1)
>
> This would work since sysvinit is an essential package and already installed
> anyway. The only thing that would happen if a seperate powerd package is
> installed that dpkg forces one to upgrade sysvinit as well, which is
> exactly what we want. Right?
No, this won't work. `Depends' lines don't take effect until the
package has already been unpacked, and in any case you don't want a
dependency on a later version. There's no reason why someone with an
earlier version can't just have the old files overwritten, right ?
Michael Alan Dorman writes ("Re: sysvinit vs. new powerd... "):
...
> Assuming that 2.62 is the version that has been divested of powerd,
> this should only require a conflicts with sysvinit (<=2.61) to work
> right, no?
No, this is worse. It will break upgrades.
If all you want is for powerd to be able to take over some files from
sysvinit then you can say `Replaces: sysvinit (<=2.61)'. This will
silence dpkg's moans about file overwriting, and when sysvinit is
upgraded to the version without the files all will still be well.
Ian.
Reply to: