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

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Nov 2005, Andreas Metzler wrote:
>> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org> wrote:
>> [...]
>>> Meanwhile, I am using this: unversioned depends and two conflicts: (<<
>>> {Upstream-Version}), (>= {Upstream-Version}.1).

>> Depends: foo (>={Upstream-Version}), foo (<< {Upstream-Version}.1)

>> instead should also work without the need for a cumbersome <<conflict.

> Yes. It is just a matter of which one you like better.

Afaiui the different possibilties are not equivalent, because
conflicts need to be satisfied before installation, depends only at
configuration (after unpacking, ...).

Quoting policy:
| A Conflicts entry should almost never have an "earlier than" version
| clause.  This would prevent dpkg from upgrading or installing the
| package which declared such a conflict until the upgrade or removal of
| the conflicted-with package had been completed.
             cu andreas
The 'Galactic Cleaning' policy undertaken by Emperor Zhark is a personal
vision of the emperor's, and its inclusion in this work does not constitute
tacit approval by the author or the publisher for any such projects,
howsoever undertaken.                                (c) Jasper Ffforde

Reply to: