On Wednesday 16 June 2010 19:07:33 Russ Allbery wrote:
> + Normally, <tt>Breaks</tt> should be used in conjunction
> + with <tt>Replaces</tt>.<footnote>
> + To see why <tt>Breaks</tt> is required in addition
> + to <tt>Provides</tt>, consider the
^^^^^^^^^
> + case of a file in the package <package>foo</package> being
> + taken over by the package <package>foo-data</package>.
> + <tt>Replaces</tt> will allow <package>foo-data</package> to
> + be installed and take over that file. However,
> + without <tt>Breaks</tt>, nothing
> + requires <package>foo</package> to be upgraded to a newer
> + version that knows it does not include that file and instead
> + depends on <package>foo-data</package>. Nothing would
> + prevent the new <package>foo-data</package> package from
> + being installed and then removed, removing the file that it
> + took over from <package>foo</package>. After that
> + operation, the package manager would think the system was in
> + a consistent state, but the <package>foo</package> package
> + would be missing one of its files.
> + </footnote>
Shouldn't this "Provides" be "Replaces"?
Otherwise, it sounds good to me. It certainly answers my original question
that caused me to look at policy (and as in #d-mentors) as well as answering
a few others that I didn't even know I should ask before.
cheers
Stuart
--
Stuart Prescott www.nanoNANOnano.net
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
