Re: apt-get upgrade and package consolidation
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Frank de Lange <debian-mentors-f@unternet.org> writes:
>
>> In packaging owncloud (https://owncloud.org) for Debian we've hit on a
>> bit of a snag. In previous versions of the Debian packages, many
>> disparate components were delivered in their own package
>> (owncloud-app-encryption, owncloud-app-kichensink, owncloud-app-.....,
>> etc). These functions have now been consolidated into the main package,
>> named owncloud-server. The main question now is how to get this upgrade
>> to go ahead using a normal apt-get upgrade (or the equivalent in other
>> upgrade mechanisms) without needing to resort to dist-upgrade or a
>> targeted upgrade (apt-get upgrade/install owncloud-server).
>
>> Currently the following happens:
>
>> - user has the whole bunch of owncloud-app-... packages installed
>> as well as owncloud-server, all at v 8.1.1-1.
>
>> - the next version of owncloud-server (v 8.1.3-6.1) includes all these
>> owncloud-app-... packages. In the control file this is stated:
>
>> Conflicts: ... owncloud-app-activity (<< 8.1.3-6.1), owncloud-
>> app-encryption (<< 8.1.3-6.1), ... (etcetera - the list is long)
>> Breaks: ... owncloud-app-activity (<< 8.1.3-6.1), owncloud-
>> app-encryption (<< 8.1.3-6.1), ... (etcetera - the list is long)
>
> You basically never want both Conflicts and Breaks. Breaks is a weaker
> version of Conflicts. In this case, I think you want Conflicts, not
> Breaks, plus Provides and Replaces.
>
>> - user tries a normal upgrade but this fails - owncloud-server
>> is held back
>
>> - attempting to solve this by adding a 'Provides:' section with the
>> consolidated packages does not solve it either - now both the
>> owncloud-server package as well as all those 'Provided' packages
>> are held back.
>
> I think you need Replaces. See:
>
> https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#s7.6.2
>
Uh, jut got this reply. The new owncloud-server already contains a
'Replaces:' section, mentioning all the consolidated packages.
We can try to remove the Breaks: section, but it is doubtful as to
whether that would solve this issue. Since they more or less state the
same but in different terms it is probably a good idea anyway.
Gr//Fr
Reply to: