Package: debian-policy Version: 3.8.4.0 Severity: normal >From Debian policy, paragraph 7.3:
-8<- If the breaking package also overwrites some files from the older package, it should use Replaces (not Conflicts) to ensure this goes smoothly. ->8- This phrase does not fits well with the 7.4 paragraph: -8<- When one binary package declares a conflict with another using a Conflicts field, dpkg will refuse to allow them to be installed on the system at the same time. ->8- Package with file conflicts should use Conflicts, not Breaks if they overwrite some files in another package, because they are not allowed to be unpacked at the same time, contrary to the Breaks case whey they are not allowed to be configured at the same time. Otherwise it will be able to lead to file overwrites in case of downgrading the "breaking" package. Also, generally, this phrase makes impossible for high-level package manager to know if two packages, one of which breaks another, have conflicting files or no, which has impact of generating sequence of dpkg calls when dependencies is so tight that high-level package manager should break some dependencies temporarily. Plus, I don't see the rationale why Breaks+Replaces should be used instead of Conflicts+Replaces - with that setup upgrade also goes smoothly. -- System Information: Debian Release: squeeze/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (990, 'unstable'), (900, 'testing'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 2.6.32-trunk-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash debian-policy depends on no packages. debian-policy recommends no packages. Versions of packages debian-policy suggests: pn doc-base <none> (no description available) -- no debconf information -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100423072052.16211.33377.report...@1501-debian.yfhome
