[Pkg-fonts-devel] Update for fonts-sil-annapurna

Fabian Greffrath fabian at debian.org
Tue Jun 27 10:17:37 UTC 2017

Bobby de Vos wrote:
> * I leave the Breaks and Replaces fields in the package for Debian

I'd consider this "reasonable" enough, since you explained what these
fields are meant for. ;)

> On some Debian list (I am sorry I cannot find it now) I thought I
> remember someone saying that the versioned Breaks/Replace should not
> include the Debian revision, just the upstream version (in this case
> 1.202). Am I remembering that correctly, or just incorrect?

I'd say this is plain wrong. If you introduced a change to unbreak two
packages and make them co-installable, this has happened in a specific
Debian revision. (Conflicts are completely unversioned, though).

I have seen advice to remove the Debian revision from the version number
in .symbols files which track the API of a shared library. But this is
really the only context for which I have read something like this so far.

> be greater than 1.202-1~ for this to work. So in the
> fonts-sil-annapurnasil control file I would need either

It doesn't make sense for a (non-virtual) package to introduce Breaks and
Replaces against itself. Did you mean "fonts-sil-annapurna" here?

> Breaks: fonts-sil-annapurnasil (<< 1.203-1~)
> Replaces: fonts-sil-annapurnasil (<< 1.203-1~)

If you unbroke the package realtionship in version 1.203-1, then this
version (and its backport) is the first one for which the Breaks/Replaces
does not apply anymore. Since there will never be a package with the exact
version number 1.203-1~ (backports always add a suffix after the tilde)
both variants should be alright, but you are probably on the safer side
with the "<<" one. I am not sure if lintian has an opinion about this,

> I have taken out the shared library reference and the dirs file, and
> will commit those changes soon.


More information about the Pkg-fonts-devel mailing list