Re: Conflicting packages not of extra priority.
On Sun, 7 Feb 1999, Jules Bean wrote:
> 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.
That was the e2compr case, two essential packages in bo conflicted with
each other. Since by definition all essential packages must be installed
it really gave APT some pain!
Jason
Reply to: