Bug#225004: tetex-extra: Type1 fonts should be in a separate package

[Florent Rougon <f.rougon@free.fr>]

frank@kuesterei.ch (Frank Küster) wrote:

> I doubt this. I think if there is a Conflicts, then the old package will
> be removed before the new one can be installed, as Policy says in 7.3:

Agreed.

> Replaces is not needed for this. According to policy, the combination of
> Replaces and Conflicts is only intended to be used together with a
> third, Provides.

Not agreed. :)

If you reread § 7.5.2, I think you will understand like me that 7.5.2 is
about using Conflicts and Replaces together. Optionnally, the package
declared as being replaced *can* be a virtual package, like the
mail-transport-agent example.

My understanding of Policy about Replaces is:

  1. If a) the package foo contains *some* files f[i] that are also bar;

        b) foo and bar can be installed together (they don't conflict)
           and bar will not break if the f[i] files it provides have
           been replaced by those provided by foo;

     then foo should declare a Replaces: bar (and no Conflicts: bar).

  2. If foo completely replaces bar (the user's setup with bar will not
     be broken if foo in installed instead of bar; foo and bar cannot be
     installed together), then foo should declare a Conflicts: bar *and*
     a Replaces: bar.

     Optionally, bar can be a virtual package. In this case, foo should
     also declare a Provides: bar since it is supposed to provide the
     same functionality as the replaced bar.

> this would break the upgrade. Perhaps Florent can again run one of his
> experiments...

If you want me to run an experiment, you'll have to describe it in
detail since I'll be very short on time until ~ the 4th of March.

> I think, Conflicts: tetex-bin (<=...) is sufficient.

So do I. Both fields would imply that tetex-base completely replaces an
the old tetex-bin package, which I don't think is true...

-- 
Florent