Re: Conflicting packages not of extra priority.

[Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>]

On 8 Feb 1999, Stephen Zander wrote:

> >>>>> "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. :)

You will be glad to know that I have already presented a formal proposal
to change the defintion of "extra" to this:

"This contains packages that conflict with others with required,
important, standard or optional priorities, or are only likely to be
useful if you already know what they are or have specialised requirements."


Since this is a *definition*, any package that fits the considered
description should obviously fall into the appropriate priority.

Do I need another policy proposal which explains what a definition is?
Or maybe I need yet another policy proposal explaining that chapter
2.2 of policy does not only talks about priorities but also *defines*
them?


If policy said:

extra:  this contains animals that float, or are only likely to be useful
if you already know what they are.

it would be obvious that ducks should be extra, because they float and
because this is the definition of extra.

Thanks.

-- 
 "ee99db5fb0f993561a22faddebd67f22" (a truly random sig)