Re: Conflicting packages not of extra priority.
On Fri, 5 Feb 1999, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Feb 1999, Santiago Vila wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 5 Feb 1999, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 5 Feb 1999, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, 5 Feb 1999, Dale Scheetz wrote:
[ odd indents are dale, even are santiago ]
> >
> > > This seems a bit rediculous to me...
> >
> > Mmm, why?
>
> Because from what you say, libc6 should have a priority of Extra, as it
> conflicts with several non-Extra packages, as do almost all of the other
> packages delivered by the glibc source.
Ah. Yes. I see what you mean.
libc6's conflicts line:
Conflicts: libc5 (<< 5.4.33-7), libpthread0 (<< 0.7-10), libstdc++2.8 (=
2.90.29-1), libstdc++2.9 (<< 2.91.59-2)
My interpretation is that these are fine, since they're versioned. I.e.
libc6 doesn't actually conflict with any contemporary packages not in
extra - it merely conflicts with packages which existed earlier.
> > > 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?
> >
> > No, because both of them would conflict with a package of priority
> > higher than extra.
> >
> There is nothing in the definition of extra that prohibits such a
> conflict. The statement doesn't say "only", when applied to such
> conflicts. It says that package found with Extra priority are sometimes
> put there because of conflicts with other packages, and sometimes put
> there because of minimal utility. This doesn't seem to require that all
> such conflicts will result in a priority of Extra, only that some will.
True. However, to me that is the implication.
If I say to you 'horses shall sleep in the stable' I haven't logically
precluded the possibility that horses sleep in the house. Similarly, if I
say to you 'packages which conflict with optional packages shall be found
in extra', I haven't (as you just say) explicitly forbidden such packages
elsewhere. However, I think that's the implication.
> When two pieces of software perform the exact same job to the extent that
> they must conflict with each other, there is no criterion for placing one
> package at a higher priority than the other. Debian is not in the business
> of making such decissions for our users. The availability of the two
> programs should be placed on an equal footing, allowing the user the
> freedom to decide which of the two is preferred.
Well, if you believe this, then perhaps priorities should be abolished.
And I have sympathy for this view. However, as it stands, we pick one MTA
to be standard, we pick one MDA to be standard, and so on...
> > > There is nothing in this paragraph that says that Optional
> > > packages can't conflict with Optional packages.
> > > How does this support the professed rationale?
> >
> > The paragraph says that packages that conflict with others of higher
> > priority than extra should have extra priority.
>
> No, it doesn't. It says that packages that do so, may be placed in Extra.
> It does not say that packages that behave this way "must" be placed in
> that priority.
It doesn't no. But to me that is the clear implication.
> > Since optional is higher than extra, at least one of the two priorities
> > would have to be downgraded to extra.
> >
> If the packages each conflict with the other, there is no logic, provided
> by your definition, for choosing which of the two should change priority.
Indeed. That is a decision to be made by the maintainers, or the group.
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: