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

Re: Conflicting packages not of extra priority.

On Fri, 5 Feb 1999, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> 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:
> 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.
> Now, Jules says that if optional package A conflicts with optional package
> B that package A must be given the new priority Extra.

Incidentally, or B, of course.  Only one, whichever is decided.

> 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
> fashion?

Yes.  Absolutely.  There must be no conflicts within required.  Or
Standard.  Or Important.  (Within one release, I mean - a potato-Important
package can of course conflict and replace a slink-Important one).

> 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?

Yes.  Where else do you put them?

Let us suppose that exim is Standard.  I package
exim-with-jules-really-stupid-hack.  This cannot be simulataneously
installed with exim (I haven't changed the paths).  However, it's only of
interest to people whose network infrastructure is such that every single
subnet has a distinct, prime, number of workstations in (in which
circumstance it has a superbly efficient routing algortihm ;).

So, exim-jules is useless to most people.  So I package it in Extra.
However it conflicts with exim.  Is this wrong?  Makes sense to me.  In
fact, that's what I see Extra as meaning.  Either unusual, or conflicting
with packages of higher priorities.

> If we use Jules interpretation, Conflicts ceases to be a useful tool.

I don't see that it does.  Conflicts is a useful tool. (Note that many
conflicts are versioned, in fact, and hence excluded from this reasoning).


|  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: