On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 05:09:36PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > >> Up to now, I always used "Conflicts" for explicit file conflicts and used > >> Breaks for other subtle breakages (interface/API change). So when moving files > >> from one package to the other I used "Conflicts: previous (<< last-version)" > >> and "Replaces: previous (<< last-version)" on the package where the files are. > > "Conflicts" is always right for file conflicts, and in that case should also > > *always* be accompanied by Replaces. The biggest problem, which the Policy > > wording tries to address, is the use of "bare" Conflicts, for things that > > aren't file conflicts: in that case, a versioned conflicts is almost always > > wrong because what you really mean to express is a versioned Breaks. And > > it's *that* usage of versioned Conflicts which causes the most problem for > > the package manager. > How about this? In 7.3 replace > If the breaking package also overwrites some files from the older > package, it should use Replaces (not Conflicts) to ensure this goes > smoothly. > with > If the breaking package also overwrites some files from the older > package, it must use a "less than" versioned Conflicts (not Breaks) to > ensure both upgrades and downgrades go smoothly. I'm not sure I have an informed opinion about this section, yet. And there's a separate bug report about this paragraph, which I think we should use to track this questino separately. > And in 7.4 replace > A Conflicts entry should almost never have an "earlier than" version > clause. This would prevent dpkg from upgrading or installing the > package which declared such a conflict until the upgrade or removal of > the conflicted-with package had been completed. Instead, Breaks may be > used. > with > A Conflicts entry should only have an "earlier than" version clause if > it coincides with a Replaces clause of the same package and version. A > Conflicts with an "earlier than" version clause without Replaces > clause is almost always better done as Breaks. I think the middle sentence explaining the rationale should be retained. Aside from that, I think your wording is an improvement. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature