Re: conflicts/replaces/provides vs. breaks/replaces/provides under policy 3.9.1
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 01:05:15PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Osamu Aoki <osamu@debian.org> writes:
> > =============================================================================
> > Case 1: only one package rule
...
Thanks.
> > =============================================================================
> > Case 2: package transition rule
...
Thanks.
> > Do we need ( << 1.0 ) for replaces?
>
> You don't strictly need it, but I think it's cleaner, since it catches
> mistakes (such as not properly removing the transitioned files from foo).
Good to know.
> > =============================================================================
> > Case 2': package transition rule
> > After stable release with case 2, you wish to remove the transitional
> > package foo upon upgrade to unstable/testing/next-stable. I guess we do
> > not package "Package: foo" at this moment when uploading.
>
> > Question: Is there sure way to purge the old transitional package foo?
>
> I'm dubious that even attempting to do this is a good idea. I wouldn't
> bother.
OK. After good night sleep with your comment, it is not worth it.
Osamu
Reply to: