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

Re: conflicts/replaces/provides vs. breaks/replaces/provides under policy 3.9.1



Hi,

It is complicated.

On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 04:45:59PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Osamu Aoki <osamu@debian.org> writes:
> > =============================================================================
> > Case 2: package transition rule
> > All the contents of the package foo is incorporated by bar in new 1.0
> > version and foo 1.0 became a transitional package with no real contents
> > which can be removed safely.  Please note pre-1.0 version of foo was not
> > a transitional package.
> >
> > | Package: foo 
> > | Version: 1.0
> > | Description: ...
> > |   This is a transitional package for foo, and can be safely removed
> > |   after the installation is complete.
> >
> > | Package: bar 
> > | Version: 1.0
> > | Breaks: foo ( << 1.0 )
> > | Replaces: foo ( << 1.0 )
> > | Provides: foo
> >
> > Question: Is this right?  
> 
> Actualy I think the Breaks is wrong and Conflicts must be used. 

So your suggestion seems different from others here.

Are we talking the same case?

> Consider the following sequenze of commands:
> 
> dpkg -i foo_0.1.deb
> dpkg -i --auto-deconfigure bar_1.0.deb
> dpkg --purge bar
> dpkg --configure -a
> 
> After this foo 0.1 is installed and configured. It is also totaly broken
> because all its files are gone (except /usr/share/doc/foo).
> 
> There was a discussion about this on debian-policy some month back but
> I lost track of the it and the conclusion.

Are you talking about thread started by
http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2010/05/msg00009.html

This has
http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2010/05/msg00012.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2010/05/msg00018.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2010/05/msg00020.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2010/05/msg00023.html

I need to have some time to digest all these.

> Also I consider the Provides optional. 

Agreed.

(The followings were understandable.)


Reply to: