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/ \_/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
