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?

-- 
Gruesse/greetings,
Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4

_______________________________________________
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

Reply via email to