retitle 592610 Clarify when Conflicts + Replaces et al are appropriate
quit
Hi Goswin,
In 2010, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
in May there was a discussion about the right use of Breaks or
Conflicts as part of Bug#582423, e.g.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2010/05/msg00012.html
Policy
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes:
In 2010, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
in May there was a discussion about the right use of Breaks or
Conflicts as part of Bug#582423, e.g.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2010/05/msg00012.html
Policy ยง7.6.2 sayeth:
| Second, Replaces allows
Eugene V. Lyubimkin jac...@debian.org writes:
[ sorry for not proper 'mail-reply', used wrong mail address before ]
Huh? The presense of Replaces allows the two to be both unpacked. The
Repalces specifically disables the file conflict.
Replaces is one-way dependency, Breaks is two-way one.
Seconded.
Specifically, Policy now allows use Breaks, not Conflicts if two
packages has a file conflict. I consider it as a regression - a
high-level package manager cannot assume anymore that two packages
having Breaks can be installed (temporarily) without a file conflict,
and IMO the
Eugene V. Lyubimkin ext-lyubimkin.eug...@nokia.com writes:
Seconded.
Specifically, Policy now allows use Breaks, not Conflicts if two
packages has a file conflict. I consider it as a regression - a
high-level package manager cannot assume anymore that two packages
having Breaks can be
[ sorry for not proper 'mail-reply', used wrong mail address before ]
Huh? The presense of Replaces allows the two to be both unpacked. The
Repalces specifically disables the file conflict.
Replaces is one-way dependency, Breaks is two-way one. If I unpack two
packages, one having
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 06:09:11PM +0300, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
[ sorry for not proper 'mail-reply', used wrong mail address before ]
Huh? The presense of Replaces allows the two to be both unpacked. The
Repalces specifically disables the file conflict.
Replaces is one-way dependency,
Steve Langasek wrote:
Breaks and Replaces are both asymmetric relationships.
and
If I unpack two packages, one having Breaks+Replaces, in the other order, I
will have a file conflict.
No, you won't. Why would you think so?
By logic. I didn't see anything to prevent them. However, as
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 07:07:35PM +0300, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
Breaks and Replaces are both asymmetric relationships.
and
If I unpack two packages, one having Breaks+Replaces, in the other order, I
will have a file conflict.
No, you won't. Why would you
Steve Langasek wrote:
By logic. I didn't see anything to prevent them. However, as dpkg disagree
with me too, I started to wonder if policy in 'Packages can declare in their
control file that they should overwrite files in certain other packages, or
completely replace other packages' actually
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.8.4.0
Severity: normal
Hi,
in May there was a discussion about the right use of Breaks or
Conflicts as part of Bug#582423, e.g.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2010/05/msg00012.html
Since then I've noticed at least 3 people on #debian-devel asking
11 matches
Mail list logo
