Hello,
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 8:30 AM, Mathieu Malaterre
<mathieu.malate...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Since you moved files from fop to libfop-java, I think you should add :
>> Replaces: fop (<< 1:1.0.dfsg2-6)
>> Breaks: fop (<< 1:1.0.dfsg2-6)
>> to libfop-java ?
>
> I did apply you change on the svn however I still worried this is not
> correct. fop package is still available it now has a new Depends:
> libfop-java. I can see why libfop-java 1:1.0.dfsg2-6 and fop
> 1:1.0.dfsg2-5 will not work nicely together. But I fails to see a
> relation of Breaks and Replaces. Shouldn't it be a Conflicts: ?
Breaks is a less strong requirement than Conflicts and is the
correct choice in this case. Quoting policy 7.3:
Many of the cases where Breaks should be used were previously handled
with Conflicts because Breaks did not yet exist. Many Conflicts fields
should now be Breaks. See Conflicting binary packages - Conflicts,
Section 7.4 for more information about the differences.
Cheers,
Vincent
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/caenrq5o0fjesrbckdxch7sqyt6ysxflwub5fhhagyofmnjd...@mail.gmail.com
