Bug#705403: Correcting non-standard dpkg states in the Policy.

[Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>]

Hi,

Charles Plessy wrote:

> Indeed... how about the following ?

Mostly looks good.

[...]
> +++ b/policy.sgml
[...]
> @@ -4716,7 +4716,7 @@ fi
>            dependencies on other packages, the package names listed may
>            also include lists of alternative package names, separated
>            by vertical bar (pipe) symbols <tt>|</tt>.  In such a case,
> -          if any one of the alternative packages is installed, that
> +          if any one of the alternative packages is "Installed", that
>            part of the dependency is considered to be satisfied.

I'm a bit nervous about this change, since dependencies are more
complicated than that.  For example, a Depends relation does not
prevent a package being on the system while packages it depends on are
missing, especially during an upgrades.

There is another use of installed with the same meaning nearby, which
this patch doesn't touch:

          Packages can declare in their control file that they have
          certain relationships to other packages - for example, that
          they may not be installed at the same time as certain other
          packages, and/or that they depend on the presence of others.

How about something like:

                                                       In such a case,
           that part of the dependency can be satisfied by any one of
           the alternative packages.

Jonathan