On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 at 09:22:41 +0200, julien.pu...@gmail.com wrote:
> In src:mathcomp-analysis 0.6.4-2, I declared that libcoq-mathcomp-
> classical Breaks libcoq-mathcomp-analysis (<< 0.6.4) and closed the
> bug. It was swiftly re-opened because I hadn't used Breaks+Replaces
> according to Policy 7.6.1. But I don't want to use Replaces as libcoq-
> mathcomp-classical isn't a *complete* replacement for libcoq-mathcomp-
> analysis (<< 0.6.4) -- it only provides a small part of it!
It seems you've misunderstood what Replaces means: it doesn't mean
"is a complete drop-in replacement for". (That would need a Provides too.)
Policy 7.6.1 talks about an old package foo which has been split into
new packages foo and foo-data, which seems like your situation with the
names changed?
> The problem is with section 7.6 on how to use Replaces: indeed, the
> very first paragraph of 7.6 mentions "two distinct purposes", partial
> and complete replacement... but the rest of the section is all about
> complete replacement
What I see in that section is:
7.6. Overwriting files and replacing packages - Replaces
7.6.1. Overwriting files in other packages
7.6.2. Replacing whole packages, forcing their removal
7.6.2 is about complete replacement, so by a process of elimination,
7.6.1 ought to be about partial replacement (and it is: it talks about
"The new version of the package foo", which wouldn't exist if foo-data
had completely superseded it).
> In fact subsection 7.6.1 has an example which looks exactly like
> #1050027, but it looks wrong: if foo 1.2-2 is installed on a system and
> foo-data 1.2-3's installation is requested, then because of Breaks dpkg
> will know about the file conflicts and beware, but because of Replaces,
> it will think it's a complete replacement -- foo will disappear if I
> understand well.
No, the central misunderstanding here is that you think Replaces will
have the effect of instructing dpkg to remove the replaced package
completely, which is not the case.
smcv
