Re: Conflicting packages not of extra priority.
On 7 Feb 1999, James Troup wrote:
> Jason Gunthorpe <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > > Since an Essential 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conflicting (if one is obsolete) is acceptable.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.