On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 12:35:29AM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > retitle 630214 libapt-inst1.2: missing Breaks against apt versions from > before the split > severity 630214 important > found 630214 apt/0.8.15~exp2 > quit > > Hi again, > > Jonathan Nieder wrote: > > > Based on the changelog entry > > > > * debian/control: > > - add libapt-pkg4.10 and libapt-inst1.2 library packages > > > > I am guessing there is a missing Breaks+Replaces. > > Looking over the debdiff, I see a Replaces now but not a Breaks. The > Replaces is tracked in Bug#630204 (thanks, Shirish!), so I'll recycle > this bug to track the Breaks. > > As mentioned in policy §7.6.1 (Overwriting files in other packages), > a person trying the sequence: > > - unpack new libapt-inst1.2 > - remove new libapt-inst1.2 > > in the process of recovering from a failing upgrade will find that > /usr/lib/libapt-inst.so.1.2.0 goes missing, and a Breaks is > recommended to avoid that. > > On the other hand, with Breaks, a friendly package manager might > update apt first, meaning files are missing in the window between > when new apt is unpacked and libapt-inst1.2 is unpacked. (This > is _always_ a possibility with Breaks+Replaces, hence probably a > policy bug.) > > I suppose my knee-jerk suggestion would be to make libapt-inst1.2 > Breaks: apt (pre-split) and Replaces: apt (unversioned), to install > the same files in apt, and to raise a policy bug to fix the advice in > §7.6.1. Other ideas welcome, too, of course.
Thanks! I think the breaks is the cleanest solution. I prepare a new upload with that. Why do you suggest a unversionized replaces? It seems to me like using the same pre-split version as in the break should be fine here. Or am I missing something? Thanks, Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
