On Thu, 5 Dec 2024 16:12:27 -0300 Lucas Castro <lu...@gnuabordo.com.br> wrote:
> > After all, the incompatibility is between the package designs from > > before and after the renaming of the binary package from "lsm" to > > "foolsm"; the versioning on the conflicts/replaces should reflect > > that. And that also implies it should remain at "<< 1.0.21-1", > > unless/until a future package revision introduces some other > > incompatibility that demands a conflicts/replaces in its own > > right. > > As said, when it reached the Debian stable version, it'll not > exist any '1.0.21-1' version over there. It doesn't have to. The conflict/replaces with versions set to "anything smaller than 1.0.21-1" will always trigger when upgrading from bookworm's 1.0.4-2, regardless of the version that ends up in trixie. > The conflicts/replace expression it'll still be true, but does it > made sense? It still makes sense: all that versioning on the conflicts/replaces says is that you cannot have an lsm binary package older than 1.0.21-1 installed alongside any version of foolsm. That borderline is entirely determined by the package revision that introduced the foolsm binary package. Approached from another angle: if the conflicts/replaces were bumped to "<< 1.0.21-2", the package would declare that some conflict exists between 1.0.21-2 and every version before that (including 1.0.21-1). But you can easily see that last part isn't true: in reality, there is no conflict between 1.0.21-1 and -2, because both already have the new package design were the actual content sits in "foolsm" and "lsm" is only a transitional package. Installing lsm/1.0.21-2 alongside foolsm/1.0.21-1 (or vice versa) does not cause problems, so the versioning on the conflicts/replaces should remain at "<< 1.0.21-1".
pgpdxawngdSD7.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
