On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 19:11:19 (CEST), Felipe Sateler wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 04:58, Reinhard Tartler <siret...@tauware.de> wrote:
>>> ...that's at least my understanding of it - I might be wrong about some
>>> details or not cover it all: Read the Debian Policy for official info.
>> I'm pretty confident that Replaces is correct here and conflicts is not
>> necessary.
> I'm not sure, but I think this is pretty much the use case scenario for Breaks

why does libjack0 need to be deconfigured in this upgrade path?

Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4

pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list

Reply via email to