Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Nov 2005, Andreas Metzler wrote:
>>> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> Meanwhile, I am using this: unversioned depends and two conflicts: (<<
>>>> {Upstream-Version}), (>= {Upstream-Version}.1).
>
>>> Depends: foo (>={Upstream-Version}), foo (<< {Upstream-Version}.1)
>
>>> instead should also work without the need for a cumbersome <<conflict.
>
>> Yes. It is just a matter of which one you like better.
> [...]
>
> Afaiui the different possibilties are not equivalent, because
> conflicts need to be satisfied before installation, depends only at
> configuration (after unpacking, ...).
>
> Quoting policy:
> | A Conflicts entry should almost never have an "earlier than" version
> | clause. This would prevent dpkg from upgrading or installing the
> | package which declared such a conflict until the upgrade or removal of
> | the conflicted-with package had been completed.
> cu andreas
A conflicts is also not checked when other packages are upgraded
(downgraded). In practice that means that one can install the
conflicting old version when downgrading without also downgrading the
conflicting package. With depends dpkg fill error about it.
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
