Re: Conflicting packages not of extra priority.
On 7 Feb 1999, James Troup wrote:
> 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.
This isn't what we mean.
We (the people claiming that packages above extra shouldn't conflict with
each other) are talking about packages in a particular 'epoch'. We're
simply saying that two essentials in (say) slink shouldn't conflict. Not
that some set of packages in potato which 'replace' in the common english
sense an earlier set of packages shouldn't conflict.
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: