Hi, On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 11:00:11PM +0200, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote: > > And why does cupt that different? I see no reason to break other > > packages by changing behaviour there. But anyway... > Because silently indirectly upgrading package may silently may silently break > package maintainer script which catch upgrade situations.
It also might silently break upgrades if you don't do it since anyone only tests with apt-get or aptitude and gets used to how it behaves. > >> If Replaces don't make sense there, then Conflicts, probably, too. > > > > Eh, no, read again what Replaces: has for semantics in the policy (7.3 and > > 7.6.1) > > Replaces: just says that it replaces files. Which here obviously is not > > the case. (Or for replacing packages completely with > > Conflicts/Replaces/Provides > > as in 7.6.2) > conflicts as error. If you agree - fix the dependencies as you want, I just > proposed some variants. If you disagree - reassign back, I will add > openoffice.org to the list of packages to be upgraded indirectly. If at all, I'll only do it post-squeeze. The next upgrades rely on the package upgrade order... Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' r...@debian.org | GnuPG-Key ID: D03E3E70 `- Fingerprint: E12D EA46 7506 70CF A960 801D 0AA0 4571 D03E 3E70 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
