Re: Conflicting packages not of extra priority.
On Fri, 5 Feb 1999, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 04, 1999 at 04:22:26PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > Which was precisely what I said! A package conflicting with a package *of a
> > higher priority than itself* goes to Extra.
> No, this is *again* false.
> I leave it as an exercise to the reader to find the obvious reason for
> this statement.
Then let's exercise ;-)
I came in late to this discussion, so I asked Jules and John, privately,
which point of policy was under discussion. They both agreed that the
discussion is about the following paragraph:
This contains packages that conflict with others with higher
priorities, or are only likely to be useful if you already know
what they are or have specialised requirements.
Now, Jules says that if optional package A conflicts with optional package
B that package A must be given the new priority Extra.
John disagrees, and so do I.
The paragraph clearly states "higher priorities", not "the same priority",
so I would say that Jules is incorrect.
Jules, would you insist that a Required package that conflicts with
another Required package should change its priority to Extra? This sounds
pretty rediculous to me, so why should the other priorities act in this
Even considering this paragraph, it has always been my understanding that
packages may _not_ conflict with packages of a higher priority. The idea
that they might be able to do this with the priority Extra (the lowest
priority there is!) doesn't make any sense to me. Is there some rational
behind this that I don't get?
If we use Jules interpretation, Conflicts ceases to be a useful tool.
_-_-_-_-_- Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide" _-_-_-_-_-_-
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769
Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road
e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org Tallahassee, FL 32308
_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-