Raphael Hertzog wrote: > 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.
I suspect Conflicts: A (<< new version), Replaces: A (<< new version) is usually more appropriate. If you use an unqualified Conflicts: A, then the sysadmin cannot build a transitional package with equivs to satisfy versioned dependencies. Not to mention that the packager herself cannot build and upload a transitional package. Jonathan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
