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

[Goswin von Brederlow <goswin-v-b@web.de>]

Osamu Aoki <osamu@debian.org> writes:

> 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.)

That looks like the one.

MfG
        Goswin