[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: missing package conflicts

On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 11:20:21PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-04-16 at 15:44 -0400, Daniel Schepler wrote:
> <snip>
> > I'd be interested in seeing how there can be 75 package pairs with shared file 
> > names which coinstall successfully.  In the case of a Replaces making that 
> > possible, I'd say that the package with files being replaced should usually 
> > have a bug report submitted to get those obsolete files removed.  On the 
> > other hand, if there's a diversion involved, that seems fine.
> These are surely cases of diversions.  Diversions aren't visible in
> package metadata, since they're carried out by the preinst script.  The
> only sure way to check for them is to have dpkg run the script, which
> the final figure of 27 conflicts is based on.

The remaining 75 package pairs do not fail to install *due to file
overwriting*. Most of them succeed to install, but some fail to
install for reasons different from file overwriting.

In fact most of them use diversions, but not all of them.
Some packages are mentionend in the Contents file but do not
actually exist in the distribution. One reason is certainly that
the Contents file is about main+contrib+nonfree while I do
installation tests only from main. I will fix that for the next run.

I agree that the remaining 75 cases also deserve some investigation.


Reply to: