On 28-Aug-2026, Ben Finney wrote: > When a maintainer learns (through a bug report, or otherwise) that a > “Breaks: package (<= older-version)” is insufficient? That maintainer will > go looking in places like the Policy document. > […] > > Currently, my quick reading of the Policy document led to the comparison of > “Breaks” versus “Conflicts”; that was apparently the most salient > difference, so that's what I reached for.
So, to more precisely answer your query (how you might more successfully ask people to correct the binary package dependencies): the Policy section to read is §7.6 “Overwriting files and replacing packages - "Replaces"”. That section did not show up immediately when I went looking for the most obvious fix. I think, if you want people to read it, you'll need to direct them to Policy §7.6, specifically. Thanks again, for giving attention to this and for seeking how to improve effectiveness. -- \ “If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you | `\ have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither | _o__) on your side, pound the table.” —anonymous | Ben Finney <[email protected]>
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
