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

Re: Conflicting packages not of extra priority.

On 7 Feb 1999, James Troup wrote:

> Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ualberta.ca> writes:

> > > 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.

James, re-read what I said. I agree that two Essential packages
conflicting (if one is obsolete) is acceptable. It is non-essential
packages (those pesky other packages) conflicting with essential packages
that are hard to deal with. 


Reply to: