On 2013-09-08 01:35, gregor herrmann wrote: > On Sat, 07 Sep 2013 23:44:12 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > >> Is this the right syntax for the break clause: >> >> Breaks: jakarta-jmeter (<< 2.8-1), >> jenkins-instance-identity (<< 1.3-1), >> jglobus (<< 2.0.6-1), >> libitext-java (<< 2.1.7-6), >> libpdfbox-java (<< 1:1.8.2+dfsg-1), >> voms-api-java (<< 2.0.9-1.1) >> >> I listed only the package that were confirmed to break and required and >> modification. I'm not sure about versions, should I use (<< X) where X >> is the first version supporting Bouncy Castle >= 1.47, or should I use >> (<= Y) where Y is the last version in testing compatible with Bouncy >> Castle 1.44? > > The former, i.e. "<< X"; it should break everything less than the first > fixed version of those packages, since there are broken (pun > intended). > > Cheers, > gregor >
Actually, (being a bit pedantic) you should use "<< X~", so backports cannot satisfy the relation either. In this given case, I don't think it will make a difference, but I believe it is a good habit to have. ~Niels -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org