Re: Conflicting packages not of extra priority.
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. :)
It's not a fallacy. It's a matter of interpretation.
If I say to you, "In the stable, we keep the horses", you will infer from
that that we don't keep the horses in the house.
Equally, if policy says, "In extra, we put packages which confict with
packages in higher priorities", then I inferred that that was the only
place we could put them.
If you prefer a more colourful analogy, "In the seventh circle, we roast
Debian'ers who violated policy". This implies that that is the only place
we keep them.
So no, it is not a logical conclusion. It is an inference. But it is, to
my mind, the obvious inference.
<g>
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: