[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Conflicting packages not of extra priority.

On Thu, 4 Feb 1999, John Goerzen wrote:

> 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.

The developers discuss it.  Presumably, package B goes to extra, at which
point package A no longer conflicts with something of higher priority than

> > 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.

Well, I'm mystified by yours.  However, as someone just said, ours is a
common interpretation, and I'm afraid I do find it significant that the
person who wrote those words agrees with me.


|  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: