In <hjp7pj$k1...@ger.gmane.org>, Jeffrey Cao wrote:
>On 2010-01-26, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. <b...@iguanasuicide.net> wrote:
>> On Tuesday 26 January 2010 06:39:24 Jeffrey Cao wrote:
>>> Now, I get why the elinks package is scheduled to be removed. The
>>>  dependency must be wrong for elinks-data package as follows.
>>>
>>> Conflicts: elinks (< 0.11.3-1), elinks-lite
>>> Replaces: elinks (< 0.11.3-1)
>>
>> That looks correct, for the case when files
>> that were previously included in
>> the elinks package (versions << 0.11.3-1) are
>> now included in the elinks-data
>> package and no longer included in the elinks
>> package (>= 0.11.3-1).
>
>I don't thinks this is the case, since that when I do "aptitude show
> elinks", it shows elinks depends on elinks-data. How could they conflict
> with each other then?

It's could be package split.

e.g.
Past -> elinks (<< 0.11.3-1)) installs stuff in /usr/bin and /usr/share
Present -> elinks (>= 0.11.3-1) installs stuff in /usr/bin and Depends on 
elinks-data; elinks-data (>= 0.11.3-1) installs stuff in /usr/share

It could also be that a single file was changed from being installed by elinks 
to being installed by elinks-data.

To make upgrades clean, the Conflicts and Replaces on *old* versions have to 
be in place.  elinks-data doesn't Conflict or Replace *current* or *future* 
versions of elinks.

The version restrictions are very important here.

Also, please trim the quoted text in your post.
-- 
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.                   ,= ,-_-. =.
b...@iguanasuicide.net                   ((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy         `-'(. .)`-'
http://iguanasuicide.net/                    \_/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply via email to