On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 06:07, Dan S <danstowell+de...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2011/5/11 Felipe Sateler <fsate...@debian.org>: >> Hi, sorry for taking so long. >> >> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 15:57, Dan S <danstowell+de...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> 2011/4/16 Felipe Sateler <fsate...@debian.org>: >>> >>>> - I would really like to fold all the -dev packages into one. I don't >>>> see much point in splitting them. >>> >>> I've discussed it with the upstream devs and we're OK with merging >>> them, so I've done that. >> >> Good. However, the relationship with thte old packages is wrong. It >> should Replace the older packages. > > Ah right, thanks. > >> However, I'm not quite sure if we >> should apply policy 7.6.1 or 7.6.2 (ie, Replaces+Breaks or >> Replaces+Conflicts+Provides). >> >> What do others think? > > In lieu of any other responses (so far), the latter > (Replaces+Conflicts+Provides) seems to me to have the better > semantics, although we're not talking about virtual packages (which > policy 7.5 is pretty specific about). From reading the guide I can't > decide either; unless anyone can advise, maybe we should go for > Replaces+Breaks.
Upon further reading, I think we should use conflicts+replaces+provides, because we are replacing whole packages. -- Saludos, Felipe Sateler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/banlktikjs5jbehmic_-oavgmwcpo10l...@mail.gmail.com
