Re: bsdutils claims to provide kill, which is wrong (was Re: Bug#64460: whois package shouldn't be Priority: important, rather optional)
On Tue, May 23, 2000 at 10:16:07AM +1000, Craig Small wrote:
> > It seems strange at best that procps and bsdutils are both "required," but
> > that procps states that it replaces bsdutils. My guess is that the
> > maintainer for procps really intended to say that procps replaces older
> > versions of bsdutils, but that is not how it is in the database.
>
> Replaces, in Debian terms, is a pretty awful word to use here. When it
> is used in a control file it means some part of procps replaces some
> part of bsdutils. It is important to have that so procps will work
> with older bsdutils packages. Granted procps should now use a versioned
> dependency but it is not essential.
Replaces: bsdutils (<< 2.9x-1)
...and most of the ambiguity will be gone. :)
> The other thing is that procps is required, so I don't think you need
> dependencies.
No, package also needs `Essential: yes' for that, as per Policy 2.3.7.
Seems a bit redundant... but that's the way it is.
--
Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification
Reply to: