On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 05:58:05PM -0000, Chris Lamb wrote: > I'm inferring from the way you reference it that you have difficulty > getting these incantations right, but I must also admit that I rarely > ever get these right myself without some assistance. Indeed, I see a > "Breaks" that was likely one misguided attempt of mine to address this. > > Perhaps we can get some outside assistance on this so we would feel > a bit more confident?
Indeed, this is out of my routine packaging work. I went digging and I *think* the trick is in policy 7.6.2; at least, I'd give this one a try: 7.6.2. Replacing whole packages, forcing their removal ------------------------------------------------------ Second, "Replaces" allows the packaging system to resolve which package should be removed when there is a conflict (see Conflicting binary packages - Conflicts). This usage only takes effect when the two packages *do* conflict, so that the two usages of this field do not interfere with each other. In this situation, the package declared as being replaced can be a virtual package, so for example, all mail transport agents (MTAs) would have the following fields in their control files: Provides: mail-transport-agent Conflicts: mail-transport-agent Replaces: mail-transport-agent ensuring that only one MTA can be unpacked at any one time. See Virtual packages - Provides for more information about this example. Enrico -- GPG key: 4096R/634F4BD1E7AD5568 2009-05-08 Enrico Zini <[email protected]>
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
