Re: conflicts/replaces/provides vs. breaks/replaces/provides under policy 3.9.1

2010-08-11 Thread Goswin von Brederlow
Osamu Aoki writes: > Hi, > > It is complicated. > > On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 04:45:59PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: >> Osamu Aoki writes: >> > = >> > Case 2: package transition rule >> > All the contents of the pac

Re: conflicts/replaces/provides vs. breaks/replaces/provides under policy 3.9.1

2010-07-31 Thread Osamu Aoki
Hi, It is complicated. On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 04:45:59PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Osamu Aoki writes: > > = > > Case 2: package transition rule > > All the contents of the package foo is incorporated by bar i

Re: conflicts/replaces/provides vs. breaks/replaces/provides under policy 3.9.1

2010-07-28 Thread Goswin von Brederlow
Osamu Aoki writes: > Hi folks, > > Breaks field was added to policy in 3.8 and current stable dpkg supports > it as I understand. So we are ready to use it, as I understand. > > Under this new situation, I would like to confirm what is the best > practice for each case scenario. Please comment

Re: conflicts/replaces/provides vs. breaks/replaces/provides under policy 3.9.1

2010-07-28 Thread Goswin von Brederlow
"Bernhard R. Link" writes: > Not answering the Conflics/Breaks issue, but some remark about Provides. > > * Osamu Aoki [100726 17:27]: >> = >> Case 2: package transition rule >> All the contents of the package foo is inc

Re: conflicts/replaces/provides vs. breaks/replaces/provides under policy 3.9.1

2010-07-28 Thread Osamu Aoki
Hi, On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 05:48:16PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote: > * Osamu Aoki [100726 17:27]: > > = > > Case 2: package transition rule > > All the contents of the package foo is incorporated by bar in new 1.0 > >

Re: conflicts/replaces/provides vs. breaks/replaces/provides under policy 3.9.1

2010-07-28 Thread Osamu Aoki
Hi, On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 01:05:15PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Osamu Aoki writes: > > = > > Case 1: only one package rule ... Thanks. > >

Re: conflicts/replaces/provides vs. breaks/replaces/provides under policy 3.9.1

2010-07-26 Thread Russ Allbery
Osamu Aoki writes: > Under this new situation, I would like to confirm what is the best > practice for each case scenario. Please comment on my thought as below: > = > Case 1: only one package rule > install only one pa

Re: conflicts/replaces/provides vs. breaks/replaces/provides under policy 3.9.1

2010-07-26 Thread Bernhard R. Link
Not answering the Conflics/Breaks issue, but some remark about Provides. * Osamu Aoki [100726 17:27]: > = > Case 2: package transition rule > All the contents of the package foo is incorporated by bar in new 1.0 > version

conflicts/replaces/provides vs. breaks/replaces/provides under policy 3.9.1

2010-07-26 Thread Osamu Aoki
Hi folks, Breaks field was added to policy in 3.8 and current stable dpkg supports it as I understand. So we are ready to use it, as I understand. Under this new situation, I would like to confirm what is the best practice for each case scenario. Please comment on my thought as below: