Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> writes:
> On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 02:05:13PM +0200, Daniel Kobras wrote:
>> On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 04:12:31PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> > On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 11:22:51AM +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
>> > > Steve Langasek schrieb:
>> > > >>Package: oldpkg
>> > > >>Depends: newpkg
>> > > >>Description: transitional dummy package
>
>> > > >>Package: newpkg
>> > > >>Replaces: oldpkg
>> > > >>Conflicts: oldpkg
>> > > >>Description: ...
>
>> > > >*NO* *NO* *NO* *NO* *NO*. Look closely at the package relationships you've
>> > > >specified. Why would you upload a package to the archive that *can never
>> > > >be installed*?
>
>> > > Hm, that used to be a "magic" combination that would let dpkg do the
>> > > right thing.
>
>> > I've heard this stated before, but if it was ever true, it's definitely not
>> > the case with apt (or with britney), and it's not mentioned in policy.
>
>> It may well cause problems to britney, but policy section 7.5.2
>> ('Replacing whole packages, forcing their removal') definitely mentions
>> the behaviour of Replaces+Conflicts.
>
> It explains Replaces+Conflicts. It does *not* say "create a dummy package
> that can't be installed because it depends on the thing that conflicts it".
Might be good to include a Provides too or packages depending in the
oldpkg will break.
--
O T A V I O S A L V A D O R
---------------------------------------------
E-mail: otavio@debian.org UIN: 5906116
GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855
Home Page: http://www.freedom.ind.br/otavio
---------------------------------------------
"Microsoft gives you Windows ... Linux gives
you the whole house."