On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 10:39:28PM -0600, Luis Rodrigo Gallardo Cruz wrote: > [Note: I updated the package to backport a patch from 1.2.5, which > both a reporter and upstream agree should close #379900. Please, if you > deem the package uploadable, do grab the new version first, from the > same URL: > http://www.nul-unu.com/quien/rodrigo/debian/liferea/liferea_1.0.27-2.dsc > ]
Done. > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/# apt-get dist-upgrade [...] > The following packages have been kept back: > liferea > > But > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/# aptitude dist-upgrade [...] > The following packages will be automatically REMOVED: > liferea-gtkhtml [...] > The following packages will be REMOVED: > liferea-gtkhtml > The following packages will be upgraded: > libdb4.3 liferea > > (libdb4.3 gets upgraded because it's a two days old sid chroot :-) It's interesting that aptitude does the right thing, but apt-get bombs out. This reminds me of a long-past conversation about the differences between the two programs, but I can't remember what the outcome was. I've got a question on your transition decision, which I can't work out: you got rid of the liferea-gtkhtml package completely, but the liferea-mozilla package is a stub. Why not either get rid of liferea-mozilla or leave liferea-gtkhtml as a stub as well? After all, if liferea-gtkhtml is a stub package, then the upgrade works fine as liferea-xulrunner gets pulled in as expected. Certainly, no amount of jiggering around with Conflicts/Replaces/Provides and reading Policy and the DevRef is solving the problem for me -- I think the Conflicts/Replaces thing is really only appropriate for renaming packages, rather than subsuming their capabilities into an existing package. - Matt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
