Steve Langasek wrote: > So I think it's better to say: > > This is a stronger restriction than <tt>Breaks</tt>, which just > prevents the package listed in the Breaks field from being > configured while the package with the Breaks field is present on > the system. > > Avoids referring to packages listed in Breaks as 'broken', which it seems > we're trying to do even though we use the common English verbs throughout > Policy for the other relationship fields; and avoids the ambiguous "is > unpacked" where what we really mean is the much more bulky "is in an > unpacked state".
Sounds good to me, especially since earlier passages make that more precise already. Thanks. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100724224601.ga6...@burratino
