David Kalnischkies wrote:
> Huh? I don't get what you mean, so let me give an example:
>
> Package: oldPkg
> Depends: newPkg-client, newPkg-server, awk
>
> Package: newPkg-client
> Replaces: oldPkg
>
> Package: newPkg-server
> Replaces: oldPkg
>
> Package: awk
> Replaces: (not oldPkg)
>
> In this case, if oldPkg disappeared i would assume that newPkg-{client,server}
> should be marked as manual (if oldPkg was manual) as they seems to
> be the follow up packages of oldPkg. awk on the other hand seems to be
> just still a depends to be able to execute maintainerscripts successful.
> Nothing implicit
This sounds much saner than what I was imagining. It is still a hack,
but I like it. :)
Thanks for the explanation.
Jonathan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100527113218.ga20...@progeny.tock
