On Sat, Jun 19, 2021 at 07:46:28AM -0700, tony mancill wrote: > On Sat, Jun 19, 2021 at 10:29:25PM +0900, Hideki Yamane wrote: > > So let's remove its binary package and add Breaks: to it. > > MR is here, could someone review it, please? > > https://salsa.debian.org/java-team/uimaj/-/merge_requests/1 > > Thank you for addressing this. I will handle the merge and upload. > > Just one quick question... Why is the Breaks necessary? Is it there to > force removal of libuima-adapter-soap-java when libuima-core-java is > upgraded?
Hi, I saw the note in the changelog that Breaks is in fact there to remove the empty package, but it's not happening for me when I try to upgrade locally. My test case is to install uima-utils (which will install libuima-adapter-soap-java via Recommends) and then try to upgrade the binaries to 2.10.2-4 using dpkg. dpkg: regarding libuima-core-java_2.10.2-4_all.deb containing libuima-core-java: libuima-core-java breaks libuima-adapter-soap-java (<< 2.10.2-4) libuima-adapter-soap-java (version 2.10.2-3) is present and installed. The only way I can make this work is remove libuima-adapter-soap-java manually. Are you sure that Breaks is necessary? apt-get autoremove will clean up libuima-adapter-soap-java at some point. I took a look at policy to see if Breaks + Replaces should be used in this situation, but I'm not sure it really applies (although I think it would work better than just Breaks). Still, I'm unsure about the need for Breaks for this empty package clean-up use case. From https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#s-breaks: > Neither Breaks nor Conflicts should be used unless two packages cannot > be installed at the same time or installing them both causes one of > them to be broken or unusable. Having similar functionality or > performing the same tasks as another package is not sufficient reason > to declare Breaks or Conflicts with that package. Any concerns if I drop the Breaks before the upload? Thanks, tony
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
