Re: Renaming a package, proper values for replaces/conflicts?
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 01:17:46PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> On 2004-03-07 Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org> wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 11:23:40AM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> >> When jumping from 4.3 to 4.5 I'd like to rename pgrep to pcregrep and
> >> to provide seamless upgrades I'd introduce a dummy package pgrep
> >> depending on pcregrep, however replaces/conflicts gives me a headache.
>
> >> Package: pcregrep
> >> Architecture: any
> >> Depends: ${shlibs:Depends}
> >> Conflicts: pgrep(<<4.5)
> >> Replaces: pgrep(<<4.5)
>
> >> Package: pgrep
> >> Section: oldlibs
> >> Architecture: all
> >> Depends: pcregrep
>
> >> This looks correct, doesn't it? Any[1] version of pgrep fulfilling (<<4.5)
> >> is no dummy package and contains /usr/bin/pcregrep, therefore pcregrep
> >> must conflict with it.
>
> > I think you just need Replaces: pgrep (<< 4.5), not Conflicts: at all.
> > It's a straightforward file conflict. Conflicts: makes the upgrade
> > painful because it adds extra complexity to the unpack order: this is
> > why policy recommends against it.
Actually, Replaces:/Conflicts: has the special meaning of "this package
completely replaces that other package", which I guess is what you want.
Nothing depends on pgrep, so is the dummy package really needed?
> So it is no bug that this file-conflict
>
> | X:/ dpkg -i /apt-zusatz/pgrep_4.3-0.0.1_i386.deb
> | dpkg - warning: downgrading pgrep from 4.5-0.1 to 4.3-0.0.1.
> | (Reading database ... 9669 files and directories currently installed.)
> | Preparing to replace pgrep 4.5-0.1 (using
> | .../pgrep_4.3-0.0.1_i386.deb) ...
> | Unpacking replacement pgrep ...
> | dpkg: error processing /apt-zusatz/pgrep_4.3-0.0.1_i386.deb
> | (--install):
> | trying to overwrite `/usr/bin/pcregrep', which is also in package
> | pcregrep
> | Errors were encountered while processing:
> | /apt-zusatz/pgrep_4.3-0.0.1_i386.deb
>
> is not expressed in Conflicts: because basically we only care about
> upgrading?
That's really a bug in dpkg.
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
Reply to: