Le mercredi 11 janvier 2012 08:30:08, Mathieu Malaterre a écrit :
> > 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: ?
I've just followed Debian Policy here (see §7.6.1) :
if a package foo is split into foo and foo-data starting at version 1.2-3,
foo-data would have the fields
Replaces: foo (<< 1.2-3)
Breaks: foo (<< 1.2-3)
in its control file. The new version of the package foo would normally have the
field
Depends: foo-data (>= 1.2-3)
(or possibly Recommends or even Suggests if the files moved into foo-data are
not required for normal operation).
See,
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#s-conflicts
and
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#s-replaces
Cheers,
--
Damien
--
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/201201112258.56279.draz...@drazzib.com
