Hello Andreas, Andreas Beckmann <a...@debian.org> writes:
> Package: libmartchus-qtforkawesome1 > Version: 0.1.0-1~exp1 > Severity: serious > User: debian...@lists.debian.org > Usertags: piuparts > > Hi, > > during a test with piuparts I noticed your package fails to upgrade from > 'sid' to 'experimental'. > It installed fine in 'sid', then the upgrade to 'experimental' fails > because it tries to overwrite other packages files without declaring a > Breaks+Replaces relation. > This error may also be triggered by having a predecessor package from > 'sid' installed while installing the package from 'experimental'. > > See policy 7.6 at > https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#overwriting-files-and-replacing-packages-replaces > I'm bug-testing the documentation on ABI transitions, and it seems we found a bug. The docs say not to add Breaks+Replaces, which seems crazy to me, because, as you noted, it produces a Policy-noncompliant package and a serious bug. Please confirm what you think about the following: * Avoid Breaks and Replaces on the old library packages unless they are strictly necessary * They prevent smooth updates." https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/ReleaseTeam/Transitions It seems to me that there will usually be file-level conflicts, so the documentation seems misleading and bad, unless there is a special exception for library versions involved in a transition. Does such an exception exist? Oh, and yes, of course I'm happy to resolve this bug however is best, whether that's with breaks+replaces or filing a transition for a library that is only used by one package, where it's a package that I also maintain. Regards, Nicholas
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
