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

Re: Conflicting packages not of extra priority.



On Fri, 5 Feb 1999, Santiago Vila wrote:

> On Fri, 5 Feb 1999, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> 
> > Section 2.2:
> > 
> >      `extra'
> >           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.
> > 
> > The paragraph clearly states "higher priorities", not "the same priority",
> > [...]
> 
> These paragraphs just explain what do we find in each of the different
> priorities. They are not worded in a way that they explicitly tell us how
> we have to "move" things from one priority to another one, this may be
> derived easily from the definition.
> 
Derived from what definition?

It seems to me that when you say "This priority contains packages that
conflict with higher priorities", you are _explicitly_ declaring that the
only way a package may conflict with a package of higher priority than
Extra, is to be given an Extra priority. This implies that, when assigning
a priority to a package, the existance of any conflicts other than with
Extra packages, requires that the priority Extra be assigned to this
package. This says that it is OK for a package of priority Optional to
Conflict with a package of priority Extra, but not with one of any other
priority. This seems a bit rediculous to me...

> So, the paragraph about extra packages says that if we look at the extra
> packages, we should find packages that conflict with others with higher
> priorities, i.e. we find packages that conflict with required, important,
> standard or optional packages, or are only likely to be useful etc.

So it is your suggestion that Extra packages may not, according to this
statement, conflict with other packages of Extra priority? That is
interesting...

In addition, you suggest that the sited paragraph says nothing about
packages with priority other than Extra, and makes no demands on how one
priority may Conflict with another, unless that package has the priority
Extra?

Then it is ok for a Required package to conflict with an Optional one, or
vice versa? There is nothing in this paragraph that says that Optional
packages can't conflict with Optional packages. How does this support the
professed rationale?

Luck,

Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_-   Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide"  _-_-_-_-_-_-

aka   Dale Scheetz                   Phone:   1 (850) 656-9769
      Flexible Software              11000 McCrackin Road
      e-mail:  dwarf@polaris.net     Tallahassee, FL  32308

_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-


Reply to: