On Thursday 05 June 2008, Patrice Dumas wrote:
On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 06:16:47PM +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> That would break scripts etc that assume the cyphesis-selinux package is
> still available (either as a real package, or a Provides somewhere else).
> Why would it be a good thing to intentionally cause this breakage?
It seems to me that in some case (and here it could be such a case) it
is acceptable not to be backward compatible, here in order to have the
stand-alone cyphesis-selinux package completly disappear,
Which is taken care with Obsoletes.
and avoid inflating the number of provides.
That's completely moot in the context of avoiding breakage. There's a very
real, valid reason why the guideline for renaming/replacing packages exists
and should be followed.