Re: emacsen-common 2.0 released -- major changes (including policy)
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: emacsen-common 2.0 released -- major changes (including policy)
- From: Rob Browning <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 21:31:32 -0500
- Message-id: <[🔎] email@example.com>
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org> (Tollef Fog Heen's message of "Wed, 30 May 2012 08:41:19 +0200")
- References: <email@example.com> <CANq7iSz_W4UJX0rPRnq+PLF-jmcGfd7586rOaxOKFYKUjZvRFw@mail.gmail.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
Tollef Fog Heen <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> thanks for your work on this, it looks quite interesting, I just have a
> small comment/question.
>> - Add a "Conflicts: emacsen-common (< 2.0.0)".
> Isn't a Breaks sufficient here?
So I think you may be right here, but unless there's some significant
disadvantage to Conflicts in this case, I'm tempted to leave things as
they are, since I know Conflicts should be safe.
However, if there is a significant advantage, then I can take some time
to go back through policy and the relevant code, to try and convince
myself that Breaks would also be OK.
rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org
GPG as of 2002-11-03 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592 F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4