Bug#568515: E: unable to schedule circular actions
Hi,
On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 11:00:11PM +0200, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
> > And why does cupt that different? I see no reason to break other
> > packages by changing behaviour there. But anyway...
> Because silently indirectly upgrading package may silently may silently break
> package maintainer script which catch upgrade situations.
It also might silently break upgrades if you don't do it since anyone
only tests with apt-get or aptitude and gets used to how it behaves.
> >> If Replaces don't make sense there, then Conflicts, probably, too.
> >
> > Eh, no, read again what Replaces: has for semantics in the policy (7.3 and
> > 7.6.1)
> > Replaces: just says that it replaces files. Which here obviously is not
> > the case. (Or for replacing packages completely with Conflicts/Replaces/Provides
> > as in 7.6.2)
> conflicts as error. If you agree - fix the dependencies as you want, I just
> proposed some variants. If you disagree - reassign back, I will add
> openoffice.org to the list of packages to be upgraded indirectly.
If at all, I'll only do it post-squeeze. The next upgrades rely on the
package upgrade order...
Grüße/Regards,
René
--
.''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
: :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
`. `' rene@debian.org | GnuPG-Key ID: D03E3E70
`- Fingerprint: E12D EA46 7506 70CF A960 801D 0AA0 4571 D03E 3E70
Reply to: