On Wednesday 30 August 2006 00:29, Steve Langasek took the opportunity to say:
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 01:51:39PM +0200, Magnus Holmgren wrote:
> > On Monday 28 August 2006 21:06, Steve Langasek took the opportunity to
say:
> > > On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 04:01:57PM +0200, Magnus Holmgren wrote:
> > > > Making mail-transport-agent the empty package, and having it depend
> > > > only on exim4 (the default), should work. Of course, exim4 can't
> > > > conflict with it (but it's enough that all the others do),
> > >
> > > No, that's not enough. The exim4 package has file conflicts with the
> > > other implementors of m-t-a; there need to be Conflicts declared
> > > *directly* between exim4 and the others.
> >
> > So "package-a conflicts package-b" is not the same thing as "package-a
> > conflicts package-b AND package-b conflicts package-a"? The policy seems
> > to be saying that if a package conflicts with another package
> > (asymmetric), then they can't be installed at the same time (symmetric).
>
> What I understood was being discussed was a situation where package-a
> depends package-b, package-a conflicts package-c, and package-b and
> package-c have conflicts at the filesystem level.
Aha. No, package-c conflicts package-b as well. We would have (for example):
Package: mail-transfer-agent
Depends: exim4
Package: exim4
Provides: mail-transfer-agent
Replaces: mail-transfer-agent (??)
Package: postfix
Provides: mail-transfer-agent
Conflicts: mail-transfer-agent
Replaces: mail-transfer-agent
Anyway, this looks a bit ugly.
--
Magnus Holmgren holmgren@lysator.liu.se
(No Cc of list mail needed, thanks)
Attachment:
pgpMrbX9dSV4S.pgp
Description: PGP signature