On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 07:07:35PM +0300, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote: > Steve Langasek wrote: > > Breaks and Replaces are both asymmetric relationships.
> and > >> If I unpack two packages, one having Breaks+Replaces, in the other order, I > >> will have a file conflict. > > No, you won't. Why would you think so? > By logic. I didn't see anything to prevent them. However, as dpkg disagree > with me too, I started to wonder if policy in 'Packages can declare in their > control file that they should overwrite files in certain other packages, or > completely replace other packages' actually means two-way dependency? And is > it obvious to anyone but me? It's not a "two-way dependency"; the relationship is still asymmetric, the files from the package /declaring/ Replaces always takes precedence. But the Replaces operation is invariant with respect to package unpack order - perhaps that's what you mean? I wouldn't say this is obvious. I would say it's the /correct/ way to implement it, and I know this is how it's implemented because I remember back to when dpkg *didn't* do this correctly. But it's possible that this should be clarified in Policy. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ [email protected] [email protected] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
