On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 08:05:54PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Russ Allbery writes ("Re: Task list for a policy release"):
> > #379150: Documentation for Breaks in dpkg> > This support was added in dpkg 1.14.6, so I'm inclined to accept and > > commit this patch. I trust Ian to document the feature, and the wording > > seems fine to me. The only caveat is that I don't know if we're ready to > > accept Breaks fields in the archive already, and I'm not sure who to ask > > about that or how to decide it (ftp-master?). > I would suggest not using Breaks in lenny (unfortunately), except for > the special case where the combination to be avoided exists only in > lenny. > Any Breaks in packages in lenny will be ignored by the package system > when upgrading from etch to lenny. No, they won't. The etch version of dpkg parses the Breaks: field, and refuses to install any packages including this field. This was deemed the minimal level of Breaks: support that was needed for etch under the circumstances, given that adding full Breaks: support was deemed too intrusive at that point of the release cycle. That can still make for some messy dist-upgrades if a key package is rejected in the middle of an install, but it doesn't result in an inconsistent set of packages being installed. I do lean towards agreeing that we shouldn't use it in lenny. -- 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/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
