Re: Bug#582423: tech-ctte: reaffirm that violating Debian Policy deserves RC bug
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Fri, 21 May 2010, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>> Rename A to B | optional make A | Conflicts: A
>>> | dummy/transitional | Replaces: A
>>> | Depends: B | Provides: A optional
>> I think this is right but I'd like Raphael or someone to confirm.
>> This contradicts what I wrote in my proposed policy fragment about a
>> package not conflicting/replacing/providing a single virtual package.
> Yes this is right. Providing the old package name is very common to avoid
> breaking existing (unversioned) dependencies.
I suspect Conflicts: A (<< new version), Replaces: A (<< new version)
is usually more appropriate.
If you use an unqualified Conflicts: A, then the sysadmin cannot build
a transitional package with equivs to satisfy versioned dependencies.
Not to mention that the packager herself cannot build and upload a