Bug#592610: 7.3/7.4/7.6: Usage of Breaks and Conflicts unclear and contradictive
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 07:07:35PM +0300, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Breaks and Replaces are both asymmetric relationships.
> >> If I unpack two packages, one having Breaks+Replaces, in the other order, I
> >> will have a file conflict.
> > No, you won't. Why would you think so?
> By logic. I didn't see anything to prevent them. However, as dpkg disagree
> with me too, I started to wonder if policy in 'Packages can declare in their
> control file that they should overwrite files in certain other packages, or
> completely replace other packages' actually means two-way dependency? And is
> it obvious to anyone but me?
It's not a "two-way dependency"; the relationship is still asymmetric, the
files from the package /declaring/ Replaces always takes precedence. But
the Replaces operation is invariant with respect to package unpack order -
perhaps that's what you mean?
I wouldn't say this is obvious. I would say it's the /correct/ way to
implement it, and I know this is how it's implemented because I remember
back to when dpkg *didn't* do this correctly. But it's possible that this
should be clarified in Policy.
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/