Re: Conflicting packages not of extra priority.
>>>>> "Santiago" == Santiago Vila <email@example.com> writes:
Santiago> On Fri, 5 Feb 1999, Dale Scheetz wrote:
>> It seems to me that when you say "This priority contains
>> packages that conflict with higher priorities", you are
>> _explicitly_ declaring that the only way a package may conflict
>> with a package of higher priority than Extra, is to be given an
>> Extra priority.
One small nit: that's a logical fallacy. You're arguing from
specifics to generalities which simply isn't possible. Consider the
(in)famous Monthy Python reference: all duck's float, therefore
everything that floats is a duck. :)
If you really think that should be the case, propose a formal
ammendment to policy *explicitly* declarig it to be so. Appealing to
Ian (or anyone else) is mute: we've got a constitution, use it. :)
It should be illegal to yell "Y2K" in a crowded economy. :-) -- Larry Wall