Bug#578854: New workding for Conflicts, Breaks, and related sections

2010-06-21 Thread Russ Allbery
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes: Here is updated proposed wording incorporating fixes for the various issues raised on the list since yesterday. I've now merged this version of the patch for the next release, although please do speak up if you see any other problems, since that release

Bug#578854: New workding for Conflicts, Breaks, and related sections

2010-06-20 Thread Raphael Hertzog
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010, Russ Allbery wrote: Here is updated proposed wording incorporating fixes for the various issues raised on the list since yesterday. Seconded. Cheers, -- Raphaƫl Hertzog Like what I do? Sponsor me: http://ouaza.com/wp/2010/01/05/5-years-of-freexian/ My Debian goals:

Bug#578854: New workding for Conflicts, Breaks, and related sections

2010-06-19 Thread Steve Langasek
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 11:24:19AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: Here is updated proposed wording incorporating fixes for the various issues raised on the list since yesterday. Seconded. @@ -4829,40 +4914,35 @@ Replaces: foo (lt;lt; 1.2-3) special argument to allow the package to do

Bug#578854: New workding for Conflicts, Breaks, and related sections

2010-06-17 Thread Russ Allbery
Kurt Roeckx k...@roeckx.be writes: On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 11:07:33AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: p Normally a ttBreaks/tt entry will have an earlier than version clause; such a ttBreaks/tt is introduced in the - version of an (implicit or explicit) dependency which -

Bug#578854: New workding for Conflicts, Breaks, and related sections

2010-06-17 Thread Russ Allbery
Stuart Prescott stuart+deb...@nanonanonano.net writes: On Wednesday 16 June 2010 19:07:33 Russ Allbery wrote: +Normally, ttBreaks/tt should be used in conjunction +with ttReplaces/tt.footnote + To see why ttBreaks/tt is required in addition + to

Bug#578854: New workding for Conflicts, Breaks, and related sections

2010-06-17 Thread Russ Allbery
Here is updated proposed wording incorporating fixes for the various issues raised on the list since yesterday. diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml index 32eb5c2..f2d81e8 100644 --- a/policy.sgml +++ b/policy.sgml @@ -4641,17 +4641,29 @@ Build-Depends: foo [linux-any], bar [any-i386], baz

Bug#578854: New workding for Conflicts, Breaks, and related sections

2010-06-16 Thread Russ Allbery
Here's a fairly comprehensive reworking of the sections in Policy about Breaks, Conflicts, and Replaces. Please review, particularly from the package manager side to be sure that what I'm describing will indeed work correctly in the package management system. diff --git a/policy.sgml

Bug#578854: New workding for Conflicts, Breaks, and related sections

2010-06-16 Thread Kurt Roeckx
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 11:07:33AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: p Normally a ttBreaks/tt entry will have an earlier than version clause; such a ttBreaks/tt is introduced in the - version of an (implicit or explicit) dependency which - violates an assumption or

Bug#578854: New workding for Conflicts, Breaks, and related sections

2010-06-16 Thread Stuart Prescott
On Wednesday 16 June 2010 19:07:33 Russ Allbery wrote: + Normally, ttBreaks/tt should be used in conjunction + with ttReplaces/tt.footnote + To see why ttBreaks/tt is required in addition + to ttProvides/tt, consider the ^ +