On Fri, 21 May 2010, Ian Jackson wrote: > > ------------------------+-----------------------+--------------------- > > Rename A to B | optional make A | Conflicts: A > > | dummy/transitional | Replaces: A > > | Depends: B | Provides: A optional > > I think this is right but I'd like Raphael or someone to confirm. > This contradicts what I wrote in my proposed policy fragment about a > package not conflicting/replacing/providing a single virtual package.
Yes this is right. Providing the old package name is very common to avoid breaking existing (unversioned) dependencies. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Like what I do? Sponsor me: http://ouaza.com/wp/2010/01/05/5-years-of-freexian/ My Debian goals: http://ouaza.com/wp/2010/01/09/debian-related-goals-for-2010/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100521182314.ga17...@rivendell
