<p>
Normally a <tt>Breaks</tt> entry will have an "earlier than"
version clause; such a <tt>Breaks</tt> is introduced in the
- version of an (implicit or explicit) dependency which
- violates an assumption or reveals a bug in earlier versions
- of the broken package. This use of <tt>Breaks</tt> will
- inform higher-level package management tools that broken
- package must be upgraded before the new one.
+ version of an (implicit or explicit) dependency which violates
+ an assumption or reveals a bug in earlier versions of the broken
+ package, or which takes over a file from earlier versions of the
+ package named in <tt>Breaks</tt>. This use of <tt>Breaks</tt>
+ will inform higher-level package management tools that the
+ broken package must be upgraded before the new one.
</p>
<p>
If the breaking package also overwrites some files from the
- older package, it should use <tt>Replaces</tt> (not
- <tt>Conflicts</tt>) to ensure this goes smoothly.
+ older package, it should use <tt>Replaces</tt> to ensure this
+ goes smoothly. See <ref id="replaces"> for a full discussion
+ of taking over files from other packages, including how to
+ use <tt>Breaks</tt> in those cases.
+ </p>
+
+ <p>
+ Many of the cases where <tt>Breaks</tt> should be used were
+ previously handled with <tt>Conflicts</tt>
+ because <tt>Breaks</tt> did not yet exist.
+ Many <tt>Conflicts</tt> fields should now be <tt>Breaks</tt>.
+ See <ref id="conflicts"> for more information about the
+ differences.
</p>
</sect>
When one binary package declares a conflict with another
using a <tt>Conflicts</tt> field, <prgn>dpkg</prgn> will
refuse to allow them to be installed on the system at the
- same time.
+ same time. This is a stronger restriction than <tt>Breaks</tt>,
+ which just prevents both packages from being configured at the
+ same time. Conflicting packages cannot be unpacked on the
+ system at the same time.
</p>
<p>
If one package is to be installed, the other must be removed
- first - if the package being installed is marked as
- replacing (see <ref id="replaces">) the one on the system,
- or the one on the system is marked as deselected, or both
- packages are marked <tt>Essential</tt>, then
- <prgn>dpkg</prgn> will automatically remove the package
- which is causing the conflict, otherwise it will halt the
- installation of the new package with an error. This
- mechanism is specifically designed to produce an error when
- the installed package is <tt>Essential</tt>, but the new
- package is not.
+ first. If the package being installed is marked as replacing
+ (see <ref id="replaces">, but note that <tt>Breaks</tt> should
+ normally be used in this case) the one on the system, or the one
+ on the system is marked as deselected, or both packages are
+ marked <tt>Essential</tt>, then <prgn>dpkg</prgn> will
+ automatically remove the package which is causing the conflict.
+ Otherwise, it will halt the installation of the new package with
+ an error. This mechanism is specifically designed to produce an
+ error when the installed package is <tt>Essential</tt>, but the
+ new package is not.
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
- A <tt>Conflicts</tt> entry should almost never have an
- "earlier than" version clause. This would prevent
- <prgn>dpkg</prgn> from upgrading or installing the package
- which declared such a conflict until the upgrade or removal
- of the conflicted-with package had been completed. Instead,
- <tt>Breaks</tt> may be used.
+ Normally, <tt>Breaks</tt> should be used instead
+ of <tt>Conflicts</tt> since <tt>Conflicts</tt> imposes a
+ stronger restriction on the ordering of package installation or
+ upgrade and can make it more difficult for the package manager
+ to find a correct solution to an upgrade or installation
+ problem. <tt>Breaks</tt> should be used
+ <list>
+ <item>when moving a file from one package to another (see
+ <ref id="replaces">),</item>
+ <item>when splitting a package (a special case of the previous
+ one), or</item>
+ <item>when the breaking package exposes a bug in or interacts
+ badly with particular versions of the broken
+ package.</item>
+ </list>
+ <tt>Conflicts</tt> should be used
+ <list>
+ <item>when two packages provide the same file and will
+ continue to do so,</item>
+ <item>in conjunction with <tt>Provides</tt> when only one
+ package providing a given virtual facility may be installed
+ at a time (see <ref id="virtual">),</item>
+ <item>in other cases where one must prevent simultaneous
+ installation of two packages for reasons that are ongoing
+ (not fixed in a later version of one of the packages) or
+ that must prevent both packages from being unpacked at the
+ same time, not just configured.</item>
+ </list>
+ Be aware that adding <tt>Conflicts</tt> is normally not the best
+ solution when two packages provide the same files. Depending on
+ the reason for that conflict, using alternatives or renaming the
+ files is often a better approach. See, for
+ example, <ref id="binaries">.
+ </p>
+
+ <p>
+ A <tt>Conflicts</tt> entry may have an "earlier than" version
+ clause if the reason for the conflict is corrected in a later
+ version of one of the packages. However, normally the presence
+ of an "earlier than" version clause is a sign
+ that <tt>Breaks</tt> should have been used instead. An "earlier
+ than" version clause in <tt>Conflicts</tt>
+ prevents <prgn>dpkg</prgn> from upgrading or installing the
+ package which declares such a conflict until the upgrade or
+ removal of the conflicted-with package has been completed, which
+ is a strong restriction.
</p>
</sect>
</p>
<p>
- If a relationship field has a version number attached
- then only real packages will be considered to see whether
- the relationship is satisfied (or the prohibition violated,
- for a conflict or breakage) - it is assumed that a real
- package which provides the virtual package is not of the
- "right" version. So, a <tt>Provides</tt> field may not
- contain version numbers, and the version number of the
- concrete package which provides a particular virtual package
- will not be looked at when considering a dependency on or
- conflict with the virtual package name.
+ If a relationship field has a version number attached, only real
+ packages will be considered to see whether the relationship is
+ satisfied (or the prohibition violated, for a conflict or
+ breakage). In other words, if a version number is specified,
+ this is a request to ignore all <tt>Provides</tt> for that
+ package name and consider only real packages. The package
+ manager will assume that a package providing that virtual
+ package is not of the "right" version. A <tt>Provides</tt>
+ field may not contain version numbers, and the version number of
+ the concrete package which provides a particular virtual package
+ will not be considered when considering a dependency on or
+ conflict with the virtual package name.<footnote>
+ It is possible that a future release of <prgn>dpkg</prgn> may
+ add the ability to specify a version number for each virtual
+ package it provides. This feature is not yet present,
+ however, and is expected to be used only infrequently.
+ </footnote>
</p>
<p>
- It is likely that the ability will be added in a future
- release of <prgn>dpkg</prgn> to specify a version number for
- each virtual package it provides. This feature is not yet
- present, however, and is expected to be used only
- infrequently.
+ To specify which of a set of real packages should be the default
+ to satisfy a particular dependency on a virtual package, list
+ the real package as an alternative before the virtual one.
</p>
<p>
- If you want to specify which of a set of real packages
- should be the default to satisfy a particular dependency on
- a virtual package, you should list the real package as an
- alternative before the virtual one.
+ If the virtual package represents a facility that can only be
+ provided by one real package at a time, such as
+ the <package>mail-transport-agent</package> virtual package that
+ requires installation of a binary that would conflict with all
+ other providers of that virtual package (see
+ <ref id="mail-transport-agents">), all packages providing that
+ virtual package should also declare a conflict with it
+ using <tt>Conflicts</tt>. This will ensure that at most one
+ provider of that virtual package is unpacked or installed at a
+ time.
</p>
</sect>
-
<sect id="replaces"><heading>Overwriting files and replacing
packages - <tt>Replaces</tt></heading>
<sect1><heading>Overwriting files in other packages</heading>
<p>
- Firstly, as mentioned before, it is usually an error for a
- package to contain files which are on the system in
- another package.
- </p>
-
- <p>
- However, if the overwriting package declares that it
- <tt>Replaces</tt> the one containing the file being
- overwritten, then <prgn>dpkg</prgn> will replace the file
- from the old package with that from the new. The file
- will no longer be listed as "owned" by the old package.
+ It is usually an error for a package to contain files which
+ are on the system in another package. However, if the
+ overwriting package declares that it <tt>Replaces</tt> the one
+ containing the file being overwritten, then <prgn>dpkg</prgn>
+ will replace the file from the old package with that from the
+ new. The file will no longer be listed as "owned" by the old
+ package and will be taken over by the new package.
+ Normally, <tt>Breaks</tt> should be used in conjunction
+ with <tt>Replaces</tt>.<footnote>
+ To see why <tt>Breaks</tt> is normally needed in addition
+ to <tt>Replaces</tt>, consider the case of a file in the
+ package <package>foo</package> being taken over by the
+ package <package>foo-data</package>.
+ <tt>Replaces</tt> will allow <package>foo-data</package> to
+ be installed and take over that file. However,
+ without <tt>Breaks</tt>, nothing
+ requires <package>foo</package> to be upgraded to a newer
+ version that knows it does not include that file and instead
+ depends on <package>foo-data</package>. Nothing would
+ prevent the new <package>foo-data</package> package from
+ being installed and then removed, removing the file that it
+ took over from <package>foo</package>. After that
+ operation, the package manager would think the system was in
+ a consistent state, but the <package>foo</package> package
+ would be missing one of its files.
+ </footnote>
</p>
<p>
For example, if a package <package>foo</package> is split
into <package>foo</package> and <package>foo-data</package>
- starting at version 1.2-3, <package>foo-data</package> should
- have the field
+ starting at version 1.2-3, <package>foo-data</package> would
+ have the fields
<example compact="compact">
Replaces: foo (<< 1.2-3)
+Breaks: foo (<< 1.2-3)
+ </example>
+ in its control file. The new version of the
+ package <package>foo</package> would normally have the field
+ <example compact="compact">
+Depends: foo-data (>= 1.2-3)
</example>
- in its control file. The package <package>foo</package>
- doesn't need any special control fields in this example,
- although would generally depend on or
- recommend <package>foo-data</package>.
+ (or possibly <tt>Recommends</tt> or even <tt>Suggests</tt> if
+ the files moved into <package>foo-data</package> are not
+ required for normal operation).
</p>
<p>
special argument to allow the package to do any final
cleanup required. See <ref id="mscriptsinstact">.
<footnote>
- <p>
- Replaces is a one way relationship -- you have to
- install the replacing package after the replaced
- package.
- </p>
+ Replaces is a one way relationship. You have to install
+ the replacing package after the replaced package.
</footnote>
</p>
<p>
For this usage of <tt>Replaces</tt>, virtual packages (see
<ref id="virtual">) are not considered when looking at a
- <tt>Replaces</tt> field - the packages declared as being
+ <tt>Replaces</tt> field. The packages declared as being
replaced must be mentioned by their real names.
</p>
<p>
- Furthermore, this usage of <tt>Replaces</tt> only takes
- effect when both packages are at least partially on the
- system at once, so that it can only happen if they do not
- conflict or if the conflict has been overridden.
+ This usage of <tt>Replaces</tt> only takes effect when both
+ packages are at least partially on the system at once. It is
+ not relevant if the packages conflict unless the conflict has
+ been overridden.
</p>
-
</sect1>
<sect1><heading>Replacing whole packages, forcing their
removal</heading>
<p>
- Secondly, <tt>Replaces</tt> allows the packaging system to
+ Second, <tt>Replaces</tt> allows the packaging system to
resolve which package should be removed when there is a
- conflict - see <ref id="conflicts">. This usage only
- takes effect when the two packages <em>do</em> conflict,
- so that the two usages of this field do not interfere with
- each other.
+ conflict (see <ref id="conflicts">). This usage only takes
+ effect when the two packages <em>do</em> conflict, so that the
+ two usages of this field do not interfere with each other.
</p>
<p>
Replaces: mail-transport-agent
</example>
ensuring that only one MTA can be installed at any one
- time.
+ time. See <ref id="virtual"> for more information about this
+ example.
</sect1>
</sect>
<chapt id="files">
<heading>Files</heading>
- <sect>
+ <sect id="binaries">
<heading>Binaries</heading>
<p>
<example compact="compact">
/usr/lib/cgi-bin/<var>cgi-bin-name</var>
</example>
- and should be referred to as
+ or a subdirectory of that directory, and should be
+ referred to as
<example compact="compact">
http://localhost/cgi-bin/<var>cgi-bin-name</var>
</example>
-
+ (possibly with a subdirectory name
+ before <var>cgi-bin-name</var>).
</item>
<item>
projects / debian / debian-policy.git / blobdiff