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

Re: Moving files and Conflicts/Replaces



On Fri, Oct 08, 1999 at 01:24:34PM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> 
> On 08-Oct-99 David Coe wrote:
> > Ben Darnell <bgdarnel@unity.ncsu.edu> writes:
> > 
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> >> In the previous package, a tcl script
> >> was left in the pilot-link package, which made it depend on tcl/tk and
> >> therefore X.  I want to move this file to pilot-link-tcl, and have done
> >> so by placing the filename in debian/pilot-link-tcl.files.  The problem
> >> is that when I upgrade to the new packages, the installation of
> >> pilot-link-tcl fails unless the new pilot-link has already been
> >> installed, because the script exists in both the old pilot-link and the
> >> new pilot-link-tcl.  
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > I *think* if you say ``Replaces: pliot-link'' (but not Conflicts:)
> > in pilot-link-tcl, it'll allow pilot-link to replace some of the
> > other package's files. 
> > 
> 
> You want to do a version replaces.  'Replaces: pilot-link (<< 0.9.1)'.
> 

I think this part aren't clear around. For me, the solutions would be:

Package: pilot-link
Version: 0.9.1-2
Suggests: pilot-link-tcl [because it's a good add-on to pilot-link]

Package: pilot-link-tcl
Version: 0.9.1-2
Conflicts: pilot-link (<< 0.9.1-2) [because older ones share the same file]
Replaces: pilot-link (<< 0.9.1-2) [because it provides some functionnality
                                   of the old one].


Consequences: pilot-link-tcl is selected because of the Replaces,
	pilot-link is upgraded because of the Conflicts,
	pilot-link-tcl is installed and everyone is happy.

However, for a two packages who just exchange some files (examples,
some file moving pack to pack-doc, pack-doc being an already existing
package).

Package: packA
Version: with.no.file-new
[ can also Suggests: packA-doc but it's not mandatory ]

Package: packA-doc
Version: with.file-new
Conflicts: packA-doc (<< with.no.file-new) [because of the shared files]
[ But no replaces since packA-doc doesn't replaces any functionnality
from packA ]

I think (no test) that adding a Replaces on this case will install
packA-doc (with.file-new) even if it's not installed before the upgrade.
Not putting it just make want the user want: upgrade packA, period.

All IMHO. I would really appreciate if someone can point me to some
more detailed explanation (maybe I misread the packaging-manual?).

Thanks,

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fabien Ninoles        Chevalier servant de la Dame Catherine des Rosiers
aka Corbeau aka le Veneur Gris               Debian GNU/Linux maintainer
E-mail:                                                    fab@tzone.org
WebPage:                                    http://www.tzone.org/~fabien
RSA PGP KEY [E3723845]: 1C C1 4F A6 EE E5 4D 99  4F 80 2D 2D 1F 85 C1 70
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Reply to: