On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 04:12:31PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 11:22:51AM +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
> > Steve Langasek schrieb:
> > >>Package: oldpkg
> > >>Depends: newpkg
> > >>Description: transitional dummy package
>
> > >>Package: newpkg
> > >>Replaces: oldpkg
> > >>Conflicts: oldpkg
> > >>Description: ...
>
> > >*NO* *NO* *NO* *NO* *NO*. Look closely at the package relationships you've
> > >specified. Why would you upload a package to the archive that *can never
> > >be installed*?
>
> > Hm, that used to be a "magic" combination that would let dpkg do the
> > right thing.
>
> I've heard this stated before, but if it was ever true, it's definitely not
> the case with apt (or with britney), and it's not mentioned in policy.
It may well cause problems to britney, but policy section 7.5.2
('Replacing whole packages, forcing their removal') definitely mentions
the behaviour of Replaces+Conflicts.
Regards,
Daniel.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
