Bug#504880: Disambiguate "installed" for packages

[Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>]

Steve Langasek wrote:

> So I think it's better to say:
> 
>   	This is a stronger restriction than <tt>Breaks</tt>, which just
> 	prevents the package listed in the Breaks field from being
> 	configured while the package with the Breaks field is present on
> 	the system.
> 
> Avoids referring to packages listed in Breaks as 'broken', which it seems
> we're trying to do even though we use the common English verbs throughout
> Policy for the other relationship fields; and avoids the ambiguous "is
> unpacked" where what we really mean is the much more bulky "is in an
> unpacked state".

Sounds good to me, especially since earlier passages make that more
precise already.

Thanks.