Re: Summary of Package Overlaps
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org (Guy Maor)
- Cc: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Summary of Package Overlaps
- From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Richard Braakman)
- Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 12:45:49 +0200 (CEST)
- Message-id: <m0xGMHt-001NLaC@night>
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com> from Guy Maor at "Sep 28, 97 01:21:01 pm"
Guy Maor wrote:
> Juan Cespedes <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > I don't think this is enough; it should be checked against
> > packages in `bo' too.
> Yes, if we want to remove the --force-overwrite flag from hamm,
> examples like this need to use Replaces if the move is legitimate.
I think the specific case of xless and linux86 should have xless
Replacing and Conflicting with linux86, since linux86 is an obsolete
package. (Unless the proper solution is, as I suspect, to remove the
regexp.3 manpage from xless.)
If a file has moved from one package to another, wouldn't versioned
Conflicts and Replaces be the best solution? There is a paragraph
in the packaging manual that forbids them:
A Conflicts entry should almost never have an `earlier than' version
clause. This would prevent dpkg from upgrading or installing the
package which declared such a conflict until the upgrade or removal of
the conflicted-with package had been completed. This aspect of
installation ordering is not handled by dselect, so that the use
Conflicts in this way is likely to cause problems for `bulk run'
upgrades and installations.
However, I hope we plan to solve the installation-ordering problem
before 2.0. The paragraph above seems to address the wrong side of
the problem. ("Doctor, it hurts when I do like this." "Well don't do
like that then.")
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .