On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 15:54:41 +0900, Arnaud Fontaine wrote: > Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net> writes: > > > If files have been moved around, you need > > Replaces: python-zodb (<< 3.11.0~) > > Breaks: python-zodb (<< 3.11.0~) > > > > And not conflicts. There is rarely a need for (lone) "Conflict" these > > days (notable exception being Policy §7.5.2[1]). > > > > Please confirm you really meant to use Conflicts (and why). Otherwise > > please use Replaces+Breaks instead. > > After discussing on #767554 with other maintainers, there is really no > other solution, at least for Jessie. Here is the relevant discussion > about this on #767554: > > From upstream point of view, ZODB3 (aka python-zodb in Debian) used to > include persistent, BTrees, ZODB and ZEO modules. However, since > ZODB3 3.11.0a1, upstream has split it up into 4 distinct packages (one > for each module), bump the version to 4.0 and made ZODB3 a > "metapackage" depending on all of them. > > As of fixing this RC bug for Jessie: Among the four, only persistent > package is currently available in Debian, so there is no way to get > rid of ZODB3 (at least for Jessie). Barry: If persistent >= 4.0 Debian > package is useful on its own to anyone (and thus should not be removed > From testing), then can I add a Conflict on both packages and upload > them to fix this bug? > > And here is the reply from Barry Warsaw (maintainer of > python-persistent): > > I think a Conflicts is the right way to handle this for now, given > where we are in the Jessie release cycle. > > After releasing Jessie, we plan to update python-zodb and upload split > up modules (namely python-zeo and python-btrees which are not in the > archive yet). > I don't think that's ok. Can't you remove the conflicting files from python-zodb, and make it depend on python-persistent? Cheers, Julien
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature