On 2013-07-31 00:01, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
On 2013-07-30 23:26, Philipp Kern wrote:
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 01:17:29PM +0100, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
Since infinoted has stopped using alternatives and instead it ships
the
/usr/bin/infinoted symlink, there needs to be Breaks: against all
packages that were still using alternatives to handle infinoted.
Revisiting this, I don't think this should've been breaks, at least
for
infinoted-0.{4,3}, but rather conflicts? (Also lintian warns about
this,
because the breaks are unversioned. The older infinoteds won't
suddenly appear
without the alternatives and even if, breaks without version still
seems
wrong.)
I'm pretty sure I've tested relevant upgrades when I fixed this - have
you came across a broken upgrade path?
And an (unversioned) Breaks really seemed sufficient here, despite of
what lintian says
snip >>>
7.4 Conflicting binary packages - Conflicts
[...]
Conflicts should be used
[...]
* in other cases where one must prevent simultaneous installation of two
packages for reasons that are ongoing (not fixed in a later version of
one of the packages) or that must prevent both packages from being
unpacked at the same time, not just configured.
<<< snip <<<
Breaks really is a hint to the resolver that a newer version fixes the
problem and that it's enough to deconfigure the affected version to
upgrade it later. But then it's probably true that an unversioned breaks
is just mapped into a plain conflicts internally. It's not that you can
do anything to resolve it.
Thinking about it I wonder if conflicts could actually cause more
trouble here when upgrading?
Kind regards
Philipp Kern
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
