On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 10:58 PM, Damien Raude-Morvan <draz...@drazzib.com> wrote: > 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
Thanks everyone for the confirmation. I feel confident the package is in good shape now. Could anyone (DD) please upload the latest from fop (pkg-java svn). I have just dch -r'ed it. Thanks, -- Mathieu -- 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/ca+7wuswgsbt6_uf7av21adfdwaptanoky4rqnk-_d6jeqb8...@mail.gmail.com
