On Sat 21 Aug 2021, at 13:42, Sven Hartge <s...@svenhartge.de> wrote: > Gareth Evans <donots...@fastmail.fm> wrote: > > > So I would like to know if apt is not handling this properly, or if > > the scenario of a file changing packages (see David's previous email) > > is an expected exception to the (sort of) rule. >
Hi Sven, > > Shouldn't pitivi 0.999 be disregarded anyway as it's being upgraded? > > No, because Debian Policy says that partial upgrades are supported and > must work. Interesting, thanks. I will have a look at [1,2,3] which seem relevant - any good refs would be appreciated, even for other distros if the concepts/techniques are similar. Many thanks, Gareth [1] https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/policy.pdf [2] https://wiki.debian.org/Packaging/Intro [3] https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/index.en.html > > > It's not a conflict involving two Bullseye packages, nor with one from > > Bullseye and one held/pinned etc, so I don't see why it should happen. > > This might be a genuine bug in one of the two packages here, where a > Conflict/Breaks/Replaces dependendy was needed to move a file from one > package to another. > > I think https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=965007 is part > of that problem. > > Grüße, > S° > > -- > Sigmentation fault. Core dumped. > >