Re: Conflicting packages not of extra priority.
On Thu, 4 Feb 1999, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 04, 1999 at 10:14:42PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
>
> > > > packages which have "higher priorities"? Which ones? Obviously, since we
> > > > are talking about packages which have extra priority, it refers to all the
> > > > other priorities: required, important, standard and optional.
> > > >
> > > > So, extra is where packages which conflict with others with
> > > > required, important, standard and optional priorities should go.
> > >
> > > No, where packages that conflict with a different package OF A HIGHER
> > > PRIORITY THAN ITSELF.
> >
> > Oh, yeah.
> >
> > According to your interpretation, conflicting packages which are both
> > required, or both important, are allowed, right? :-)
>
> That's what it says.
For the record (again), since Santiago's taking all the flak:
I agree with santiago. Policy says quite clearly (to me) that packages
which conflict with packages of the higher priorities than extra go in
extra. That implies quite clearly (to me) that packages doing that must go
in extra.
I don't think Santiago needs to file a policy amendment. If John, on the
other hand, would like to file a policy amendment to clarify the wording
(or even change the sense), he can.
Jules
/----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------\
| Jelibean aka | jules@jellybean.co.uk | 6 Evelyn Rd |
| Jules aka | jules@debian.org | Richmond, Surrey |
| Julian Bean | jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk | TW9 2TF *UK* |
+----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------+
| War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left. |
| When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy. |
\----------------------------------------------------------------------/
Reply to: