On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 11:45:26AM -0300, Margarita Manterola wrote: > On 6/23/05, Steve Greenland <steveg@moregruel.net> wrote: > > > The one I can think of is honouring the "Replaces:" field, meaning > > > that when a package states that it replaces another one, apt, > > > aptitude, dselect, and all the others would install it to replace of > > > the old one. > > That is not what "Replaces:" means, and changing dpkg to do what you > > want would break a lot of existing packages that are NOT mis-using it. > > See the dpkg docs for what "Replaces:" actually does. > > The documentation for this is in the Debian Policy: > http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#s7.5.2 > > And basically, what it says is that if a package "Replaces:" and > "Conflicts:" with another package, the new one is completely replacing > the old one. > > So, when both "Replaces:" and "Conflicts:" are there, and it is not a > virtual-package, it would trigger apt replacing the package. > OK. How would I make use of this. I was going to adopt iceme and icepref, but then I saw that they are abandoned upstream. They have become modules of IceWMCP. I am going to package IceWMCP with the intent that it replace iceme and icepref. Someone recommended that I use dummy packages of iceme and icepref that depend on icewmcp. But, if I also make icewmcp Replace and Conflict with iceme and icepref, will that not cause problems (since the new dummy versions of iceme and icepref will depend on icewmpc)? The thing is, I would like to be able to package icewmcp and request the removal of iceme and icepref and know that all users with iceme and icepref currently installed will get notified that icewmcp is the "upgrade" they need. Maybe I misunderstand? -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://familiasanchez.net/~sanchezr
Attachment:
pgpaGAEUaLWes.pgp
Description: PGP signature