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
extra.
>
> > 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.
Jules
/----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------\
| 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: