>> obsoletes are not the correct place for solve such problems. > ksnapshot don't have any obsoletes but a conflict (which is probably
> indeed too much but was not expected to add any problem i Sorry to bother you, but since this is both about an upgrade and a change of package names (albeit via a fragmentation/split), why isn't "Obsoletes" a better choice? If I am not very wrong, technically "Conflicts" will cause the install/upgrade to fail and therefore forbids an installation/upgrade. Which is both annoying and it requires a multiple-step action from the end-user's part. In contrast, "Obsoletes" forces an upgrade to the new packages names, automatically removing the old packages. While in principle "Obsoletes" doesn't prevent the end-user from reinstalling the old package(s), this is not desired anyway. I mean, it's not like "kdesomething-4.6.4" and "kdesomesplitpackage-4.6.90" would coexist on the same machine -- it's either you upgraded from KDE 4.6.4 to 4.6.90, or you didn't. So I suppose you say "Obsoletes" is not the right thing to do _as a principle_ (as a principle, GOTO is considered harmful too), but why is it unsuitable for this very case of an evolving (cauldron) repository in a situation of a kinky upgrade? Of course, I am still waiting for a mentor, so I might be very, very wrong in my understanding of "Conflicts vs Obsoletes". What I believe I know is that "Obsoletes" makes things transparent for the end-user, whereas "Conflicts" looks like an error... R-C aka beranger
