Re: Unmet Deps revisted
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Santiago Vila wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >
> >> >If there are optional packages that conflict with each other, we should
> >> >choose one to stay in optional and move the others to extra. (Or change/
> >> >clarify the definition on the policy manual).
> >>
> >> The manual should be fixed IMHO - there are lots of places where this is
> >> bogus. Consider the xserver packages, for example...
> >
> >This is not a good example.
> >The xserver packages do not conflict at each other.
> >You can install all of them.
>
> Hmmm, guess so. My mistake. But surely there are some optional packages
> that can legitimately conflict...?
Please define "legitimately".
The way I read the definition of optional and extra, a conflict
between two optional packages is never "legitimate".
Please note that a suboptimal packaging does not legitimate the conflict.
For example, my unzip and unzip-crypt packages do conflict at each other,
and they are optional, so I should probably make them compatible, like
pgp-i and pgp-us, for example. [ And of course, I will not mind that
unzip-crypt is demoted to extra until I repackage them ].
(Yeah, I put my own packages as examples of suboptimal packaging!
I hope the pgp-i and pgp-us example will help you to see that surely most
of these conflicts are gratuituous).
--
"de678b3c48777bfcbc98fe1bb004351d" (a truly random sig)
Reply to: