Re: Conflicting packages not of extra priority.
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ualberta.ca> writes:
> On 7 Feb 1999, James Troup wrote:
>
> > Since an Essential[1] package conflicting with another Essential
> > package is the only way to replace an Essential package, I'd say so,
> > yes.
>
> Yes, but other packages conflicting with Essential packages is -bad- don't
> do it.
That's simply not true. It is the documented (see the fine packaging
manual) and *only* way to replace one Essential package with another
equally Essential package.
> (remember the e2compr mess?)
Just because one particular developer abused it horribly doesn't make
it wrong.
> > [1] For all occurrences of `Essential', read `Essential: yes', not the
> > weirdo apt definition.
>
> What weirdo apt definition?
The one where you promote dependees of truly-essential(TM) packages to
pseudo-essential(TM).
--
James
Reply to: