reassign 277890 dpkg tag 277890 - wontfix retitle 277890 dpkg: better handle upgrades between versions of packages affected by Replaces: thanks (Explanation follows.) On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 02:46:07PM -0400, Andrew Pimlott wrote: > On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 01:46:30PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > > > On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 02:44:05AM -0400, Andrew Pimlott wrote: > > > Package: xutils > > > Version: 4.1.0-16woody3 > > > Severity: minor > > > > > > When upgrading xutils on my mixed stable/unstable system, I got > > > > > > Preparing to replace xutils 4.1.0-16woody3 (using .../xutils_4.1.0-16woody4_i386.deb) ... > > > Unpacking replacement xutils ... > > > dpkg: error processing /var/cache/apt/archives/xutils_4.1.0-16woody4_i386.deb (--unpack): > > > trying to overwrite `/usr/X11R6/bin/atobm', which is also in package xbase-clients > > > > > > This is evidently because I have xbase-clients 4.3.0.dfsg.1-8 installed. > > > > > > No worries if you don't want to support this configuration. > > > > This is not something I think I *can* fix. > > > > I don't think xutils Replaces: xbase-clients (<= 4.3.0.dfsg.1-7) is > > something that makes sense to add to woody, nor do I think Martin Schulze > > would accept such a change. > > > > If there is a fix for this, it lies in dpkg. Every time even one package > > is upgraded, dpkg would have to rescan the Replaces: headers of all > > already-installed packages to see if this error would be suppressed by one > > of them. It could do this on a per-run basis, I suppose, so it would only > > be inefficient if you used dpkg a lot to upgrade only one package at a time. > > Ok, I see that my current xbase-clients has > > Replaces: xutils (<< 4.3.0.dfsg.1-7) > > I had assumed that this (or something similar) was missing > xbase-clients, so that there would be a simple resolution. I now > understand why this isn't sufficient (though it was entirely non-obvious > to me). The implicit assumption is that a Replaced package will not be > upgraded to one that still contains the overwritten file. Interesting. > > I agree that you don't have any palatable option. However, I think dpkg > could handle this without any performance hit. All it has to do is, > after detecting an attempted overwrite, see whether the existing owner > of the file Replaces the package being installed. (This won't handle a > change of two Replaces, but ...) > > (Obviously, I should have filed the bug on xbase-clients if I had really > thought this through.) > > Andrew > > [1] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#s-replaces Okay. I am reassigning this bug to dpkg. -- G. Branden Robinson | If you want your name spelled Debian GNU/Linux | wrong, die. branden@debian.org | -- Al Blanchard http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature