Steve Langasek wrote: > On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 02:33:23PM -0600, Adam Majer wrote: >> Filipe wrote: >>> This package is from sarge, but if someone has this installed in sarge >>> and upgrades to etch, then it stay in the system. It provides the >>> same functionality that logger.rb from libruby1.8 provides, and it has a >>> file >>> called application.rb that seems to get in the way of rails. This error >>> can be reproduced by installing libdevel-logger-ruby1.8 from sarge (this >>> package isn't in etch), and it can be installed without any dependencies >>> problem. > >> Well, it seems that the old logger was not part of the same source as >> ruby. I'm not sure if the conflicts should go to ruby unless the new >> ruby also has devel/logger.rb or application.rb. This doesn't seem to be >> the case though. > > Rather than a file conflict, this is a conflict of functionality; a target > use for the proposed "Breaks" dpkg field. > >> I think I'll just add the needed conflicts for Etch and remove it in the >> next upload after Etch is released. Seems like that may be the path of >> least resistance. > > While direct upgrades from sarge to lenny won't be supported, it would be > more accurate to just leave the Conflicts: in (or change it to Breaks:) > because the problem won't have disappeared, it'll just be less likely to be > encountered. (Well, maybe ruby1.8 will be deprecated by lenny, I guess > that's one possibility. :) >
I'm not sure about the Breaks. rails does not break the libdeve-logger, libdevel-logger breaks rails and libdevel-logger is not part of Debian after Sarge. Or does Breaks mean that Package: A Breaks: B Package: B then this indicates that package A is broken by B? - Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
