On 2009-12-20 09:33 +0100, Norbert Preining wrote: > On Sun, 20 Dec 2009, Sven Joachim wrote: >> > So what do you suggest? Adding Breaks instead of Conflicts? >> >> Generally speaking, this would be preferable. > > Why? "Generally speaking" this is not a helpful explanation.
Because it avoids the temporary removal of a package and the resulting auto-deconfiguration of its dependencies. This is the reason why it was invented in the first place. >> > The facts are that we cannot have tex-common >= 2 with old TeX Live, >> > and at the same time new TeX Live with old tex-common, both are >> > combinations ripe for breakage. >> >> But texlive-common 2009-4 already depends on tex-common (>= 2.0) which >> rules out the second combination. So why does it need to conflict with >> older tex-common? > > I don't know. Maybe because we need exactely this behaviour (remove, > upgrade other, reinstall) behaviour to make sure that upgrades are > working. But the current situation is already non-deterministic because AFAICS there is no way to tell whether tex-common or texlive-common will be removed during the upgrade. If you take out the Conflicts in tex-common, the order becomes more predictable at least. Sven -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org