Kurt Roeckx <k...@roeckx.be> writes: > On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 11:07:33AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> <p> >> Normally a <tt>Breaks</tt> entry will have an "earlier than" >> version clause; such a <tt>Breaks</tt> is introduced in the >> - version of an (implicit or explicit) dependency which >> - violates an assumption or reveals a bug in earlier versions >> - of the broken package. This use of <tt>Breaks</tt> will >> - inform higher-level package management tools that broken >> - package must be upgraded before the new one. >> + version of an (implicit or explicit) dependency which violates >> + an assumption or reveals a bug in earlier versions of the broken >> + package, or which takes over a file from earlier versions of the >> + broken package. This use of <tt>Breaks</tt> will inform > ^^^^^^ >> + higher-level package management tools that broken package must >> + be upgraded before the new one. >> </p> > The word broken there might be a little missleading, since nothing > broken, and it's just used to force an upgrade of the other package. Changed to "the package named in <tt>Breaks</tt>". >> + breakage). In other words, if a version number is specified, >> + this is a request to ignore all <tt>Provides</tt> for that >> + package name and consider only real packages. The package >> + manager will assume that a package which package which provides > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > That should probably be removed. Good catch, thanks. Reworded. >> + Normally, <tt>Breaks</tt> should be used in conjunction >> + with <tt>Replaces</tt>.<footnote> >> + To see why <tt>Breaks</tt> is required in addition > ^^^^^^^^ > That's probably a too strong word, specially since you have a > should there. Changed to "normally needed." >> <p> >> For example, if a package <package>foo</package> is split >> into <package>foo</package> and <package>foo-data</package> >> - starting at version 1.2-3, <package>foo-data</package> should >> - have the field >> + starting at version 1.2-3, <package>foo-data</package> would >> + have the fields >> <example compact="compact"> >> Replaces: foo (<< 1.2-3) >> +Breaks: foo (<< 1.2-3) >> + </example compact="compact"> >> + in its control file. The new version of the >> + package <package>foo</package> would normally have the field >> + <example> >> +Depends: foo-data (>= 1.2-3) >> </example> > I'm not sure what it does exactly, but you've created one example > with compact, the other without. And closing the example probably > doesn't need to set the compact. Yeah, added the attribute to the wrong line. Fixed. > I can see why which this breaks in the "foo-data" package is useful, but > find it non-obvious, and currently see no beter way to get the same > behaviour. The non-obviousness is one of the reasons why I wanted to be sure to document it, since I'd never understood this personally. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
