Hi Andreas, On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 07:51:39AM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote: > we currently have: > > Package: libfl-dev > Replaces: flex (<< 2.5.39), flex-old (<= 2.5.4a-10) > Breaks: flex (<< 2.5.39), flex-old (<= 2.5.4a-10) > > However afaict there are no plans for splitting flex-old into flex-old > and libfl-old-dev so this file conflict is permanent, i.e. libfl-dev should > use unversioned Conflicts instead of versioned Breaks. > > On sidenote I think flex should Conflict with flex-old like flex-old > does.
While these bugs have been filed as "missing Breaks+Replaces", this isn't the first instance where Conflicts is more reasonable than Breaks+Replaces. Thanks for looking beneath. I agree on this. Helmut
