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

Re: Conflicting packages not of extra priority.

>>>>> "Santiago" == Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es> writes:
    Santiago> On Fri, 5 Feb 1999, Dale Scheetz wrote:
    >> It seems to me that when you say "This priority contains
    >> packages that conflict with higher priorities", you are
    >> _explicitly_ declaring that the only way a package may conflict
    >> with a package of higher priority than Extra, is to be given an
    >> Extra priority.

    Santiago> Exactly.

One small nit: that's a logical fallacy.  You're arguing from
specifics to generalities which simply isn't possible.  Consider the
(in)famous Monthy Python reference: all duck's float, therefore
everything that floats is a duck. :)

If you really think that should be the case, propose a formal
ammendment to policy *explicitly* declarig it to be so.  Appealing to
Ian (or anyone else) is mute: we've got a constitution, use it. :)

It should be illegal to yell "Y2K" in a crowded economy.  :-) -- Larry Wall

Reply to: