Hi! On Fri, 2022-04-22 at 20:16:02 +0200, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > On Fri, 22 Apr 2022, Mark Hindley wrote: > > > Or Replaces: but that has downsides on deinstallation. > > > > Yes. And I am unclear how dpkg would behave if sysvinit-core was installed > > Replacing the manpages-l10n versions but then manpages-l10n was upgraded. > > Hm. Given that manpages-l10n would *not* Replaces sysvinit-core, > I’d… say/hope ☺ that those of sysvinit-core take precedence. But > I have to admit… I actually am not sure. Asking the experts ☻
Replaces works as it would be expected, yes. So as long as a package contains the field, even if a replaced package gets installed/upgraded later then it will be kept being replaced. But as has been mentioned, and on their own, they have the problem of leaving the system w/o those replaced files if the replacing package gets removed or swapped. I just checked the context for this report, and I think the better option would be for systemd to ship their own translated man pages (with appropriate Replaces/Breaks). (Helge have you considered or tried that approach with upstream?) So that when someone switches between sysvinit and systemd (or another init system providing the same binaries), the translated man pages always correspond with the actual original man pages and tools. I also think diversions or alternatives do not seem appropriate as long as the commands themselves are not handled in the same way. Thanks, Guillem
