On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 01:56:57PM +1100, Craig Small wrote: > As pidof is moving from sysvinit-utils to procps-base in the next > release, I want to check I've got the way dpkg handles flags correctly. > procps-base will contain the new pidof and will be > Essential: yes > Breaks: sysvinit-utils << 2.88dsf-43 > Now, if there is a new Essential package, is that automatically > installed? > What happens with the Essential and Breaks, one says "install this now" > the other says "dont install this if a verison of sysvinit-utils is > there". That's a bit of a conflict. > Is Replaces a better way of doing this as procps-base is replacing > one file from sysvinit-utils? > Other than removing pidof, is there anything the syscinit-utils > people need to do? > As its a bit tricky, I really don't want to mess up the > inter-dependencies. A non-working file init uses is a bad thing. You must use versioned Replaces, and *not* versioned Breaks, for the case of moving files between Essential packages. Since (as others have mentioned) the version of sysvinit-utils that drops pidof needs to add a Pre-Dep ond procps-base, the Pre-Depends<->Breaks relationship makes it impossible for the package manager to atomically keep the Essential set in working order. Cf. apt and "Could not perform immediate configuration". -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature