On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 01:18:09PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote: > On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 12:07:05PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 12:02 +0200, Bastian Blank wrote: > > > The images have to conflict against versions of the bootloaders not > > > supporting installation on its own. > > How would that help?
> As always, the packages are upgraded before the kernel and can work > their magic. > > It's likely to cause the bootloader to be removed. > No, it does not. Upgrade is always prefered over removal. 1) This should be Breaks, not Conflicts, per the refined meaning these fields now have in Policy. 2) Upgrade is always preferred over removal, *all other things being equal*. This may still result in the bootloader being removed instead of upgraded in some corner cases. However, the only way we're likely to find those corner cases is by trying this change and seeing what bug reports come back. I'm definitely in favor of adding the Breaks. Doing this should shorten the squeeze release notes' upgrade instructions by about 20%. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
