Re: Conflicting packages not of extra priority.
On Thu, Feb 04, 1999 at 09:54:52PM +0000, Jules Bean wrote:
> 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.
So what you're saying is that any package with any conflict goes in Extra?
Think about it -- for there to be a conflict, there must be two or more
packages involved. Let's say we have:
Package A -- standard
Package B -- optional
they conflict. Which one goes to Extra? By your definition, both do, since
they both conflict with packages of higher priority than extra. This makes
zero sense.
> 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.
I believe the wording is perfectly clear, and frankly am mystified by this
"interpretation" of it.
Reply to: