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

Re: RFS: figtoipe



OoO En cette fin de matinée  radieuse du samedi 17 mai 2008, vers 11:17,
Alexander Bürger <acfbuerger@googlemail.com> disait:

>> When using Conflicts and having  files in common with the other package,
>> you need Replaces  as well. Otherwise, during upgrade,  the user may see
>> error messages  about your  package trying to  erase files owned  by the
>> other (not yet removed) package.

> So what do you think about section 7.5 in the policy manual? As I said,
> to me it is confusing. It does not explicitly say that Replaces: must
> come together with Conflicts:, it sounds more like there are different
> meanings if it is alone (replace only some files) or with Conflicts:
> (replace whole package).

Hi Alexander!

[This message is about using Replaces without Conflicts]

I am not sure  either. As you noted, the policy does  not say to not use
it alone,  but this just seems odd  to me. Let's hope  that someone else
will enlighten us on this matter.

The valid way to replace a file without conflicting with a package is to
use diversion.  This is not  a solution in  your case because  you would
have to ask maintainer of ipe to use diversion too and since figtoipe is
no longer shipped with ipe, he won't be able to.
-- 
 /*
  * For moronic filesystems that do not allow holes in file.
  * We may have to extend the file.
  */
	2.4.0-test2 /usr/src/linux/fs/buffer.c

Attachment: pgpvnRbNY0ouJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: