On 2009/01/02 00:00, Alexander Bluhm wrote: > On Thu, Jan 01, 2009 at 11:39:59PM +0100, Antoine Jacoutot wrote: > > On Thu, 1 Jan 2009, Alexander Bluhm wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 01, 2009 at 09:38:26PM +0100, Antoine Jacoutot wrote: > > > > On Thu, 1 Jan 2009, Alexander Bluhm wrote: > > > > > Replace p5-IO-INET6 with p5-IO-Socket-INET6 as the upstream cpan > > > > > package has been renamed. Unfortunately there is no smooth upgrade > > > > > path. Packages have to be deleted and added manually. > > > > > > > > Fair enough. > > > > *But*, from where I stand, net/p5-IO-Socket-INET6 needs an @conflict > > > > marker anyway. > > > > > > I am discussing this with sturm@, too. Can you ok this diff? > > > > Well, maybe it could be worth adding a @pkgpath marker too so that one > > could upgrade "manually" using pkg_add -r. > > For upgrading with pkg_add -r, using @conflict seems to be enough. > > > The problematic thing here is that PKGNAME changed, which would prevent > > smooth update with "pkg_add -u" like you said, indeed. But using > > @conflict and @pkgpath, we could ease the upgrade path a bit IMHO. > > I cannot see that @conflict and @pkgpath is better than @conflict > alone. But it does not hurt so I can add it too. > > sturm: What do you think about it? > > bluhm
> +...@conflict p5-IO-INET6-* > +...@pkgpath net/p5-IO-INET6 Actually, providing you have some package installed which depends on p5-IO-INET6 which has since been updated to depend on p5-IO-Socket-INET6 (e.g. mrtg), pkg_add -u will work as expected.
