On Mon, 21 Feb 2011, Mathieu Trudel-Lapierre wrote: > "[Conflicts should be used] [...] in other cases where one must > prevent simultaneous installation of two packages for reasons that are > ongoing (not fixed in a later version of one of the packages)" > > I'm just trying to get a good understanding of this "special" case, > basically, whether it would be best here to keep a Conflicts line > despite the stricter requirements, or Breaks to simplify > installs/removal/upgrades and simply override the warning.
Your case perfectly fits this description. Just like the mail servers conflict between themselves (via the mail-transport-agent virtual package), it's logical to allow only one of connman / network-manager. Breaks is meant for cases where two package usually coexist but due to an incompatible change in one of them, you want to force the upgrade of the other one to a version that has been updated to cope with the change. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Follow my Debian News ▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.com (English) ▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.fr (Français) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
