On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 07:03:30PM +0100, Daniel Kobras wrote: > On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 04:56:08PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 02:39:57PM +0100, Daniel Kobras wrote: > > > To clarify: You want us to support having imagemagick from sarge > > > installed + pulling in graphicsmagick from etch, but pulling > > > graphicsmagick from etch + later installing imagemagick from sarge is > > > intentionally left broken? For now I've added the Replaces, but I think > > > that's a half-baked solution.
> > It's not broken; current dpkg understands that Replaces: should take effect > > even if the replaced package is installed after the package that replaces > > it. > Current dpkg does, but the feature was added post-sarge in 1.13.2. As > far as I understand, it should only be relied upon post-etch? Well, I consider this a bugfix, not a new feature, and don't see a point here in trying to work around the dpkg bug using Conflicts. YMMV, and it's your decision to make. For the record, the tradeoff here is that using Conflicts+Replaces is incorrect per policy and means that it's ok to remove imagemagick as part of an upgrade -- which apt may attempt to do, or it may simply bind trying to find an upgrade solution, and neither of those is what you want. I personally think that being able to install sarge packages on top of an etch system is an order of magnitude less important than installing etch packages on a sarge system. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
