[Catalog-sig] PEP 345 Update

[Alexis Métaireau]

 Le 08/23/2010 07:02 PM, P.J. Eby a écrit :
> At 03:37 PM 8/23/2010 +0200, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
>> This will never happen: the installer will stop and just state that
>> there's a conflict
>> and the installation cannot continue.
>
> What I was trying to point out is that if this is the
> intended/suggested use of the field, then the PEP should say so.
>
> That way, when somebody writing software is looking at the PEP, they
> will see explicit guidance that it's not intended to cause the removal
> of (or prevent the installation/re-installation of) the "obsoleted"
> package.
I agree with you, while the implementation details are not in the scope
of the PEP, we probably have to be more precise about why the fields are
here. I'll rework again a bit the PEP in this way.
>
> However, I'm still not clear on why "obsoletes" should be treated as a
> conflict; if it's conflicting, then why not just *also* say it's
> conflicting via the Conflicts fieled?
Hmm, sorry of this is unclear, I've tried to make things clearer by my
additions to the PEP, but I'll try to reformulate this here.

1/ The obsolete field could be used to say "this is the new version of
X", like "the name of the project has changed". So the new version
obsoletes the old one. Using this field, I think that the installers
should remove the old releases (by prompting the user).

2/ The conflict field just says: there is a conflict between X and Y. So
you just cant install both at the same time. This is also true for 1/,
but 1/ provides more informations, and this informations are not here to
be used in the same way.

Cheers,
Alexis