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

Bug#578854: Should "Conflicts" be added to the "Replaces" example for package splitting?

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 06:51:34PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:

> > But it's also overly aggressive, since it forces 'a' version 2 to be
> > unpacked first, *before* unpacking package 'b' - in which case, what do
> > we need the Replaces: for at all?  This is really a workaround for the
> > fact that Breaks:  didn't exist at the time this part of Policy was
> > written.  With Breaks: a (<< 2) and Replaces: a (<< 2), we can force the
> > upgrade of 'a' in tandem with 'b', but without imposing the unpack
> > ordering constraints that cause such big problems for dist-upgrades.

> Ah, aha.  (This should definitely be explained in Policy, at least in a
> footnote.)

Yes, I agree.

> So that implies that, for the typical case of moving a file from one
> package to another, we should use Replaces/Breaks, and reserve Conflicts
> for actual file conflicts between unrelated packages (such as libkrb5-dev
> and heimdal-dev).  Is that correct?

That's how I understand it, yes.

> I see some discussion in the bug log about problems in dpkg that cause it
> to possibly do the wrong thing with Replaces/Breaks and downgrades, but so
> far as I can tell from the follow-up from Guillem, the remaining issues
> aren't really specific to Breaks and also apply to Conflicts.


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

Reply to: