Re: Full install/removal/upgrade test results available
Russ Allbery <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> "brian m. carlson" <email@example.com> writes:
>> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 01:41:49PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>> Goswin von Brederlow <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>>>> Also note that no frontend has ever made use of Â§7.6.2 and handled
>>>> upgrading obsolete packages to their replacements.
>>> There's a reason for that: it's not possible to create a
>>> Policy-compliant package that could use 7.6.2 in that fashion.
>>> I keep trying to point this out each time you bring this up.
Each time? I only remember one time where I brought up 7.6.1 as
possibility for transitional packages after dpkg's behaviour with empty
packages was fixed and you explained why it won't work. It would have
been nice but it's not to be. You make it sound like I bring this up
>> Wait, what?
>> Are you saying that other parts of Policy conflict with Â§7.6.2? Or are
>> you saying that the Debian tools and infrastructure don't support it?
>> Or something else entirely?
> Ack, sorry. I was completely wrong on this because I assumed I knew what
> Goswin was talking about but confused this with a previous discussion.
> No, 7.6.2 doesn't contradict other parts of Policy, and I'm not familiar
> with the issues in using that for transitional packages (other than the
> general problem that Conflicts Is Hard To Get Right). I thought Gowsin
> was talking about 7.6.*1*, the provision where packages are removed if all
> of their files are replaced, which isn't a usable way to eliminate
> transitional packages due to other Policy requirements.