Re: Conflicting packages not of extra priority.
On 8 Feb 1999, Stephen Zander wrote:
> >>>>> "Jules" == Jules Bean <email@example.com> writes:
> Jules> If I say to you, "In the stable, we keep the horses", you
> Jules> will infer from that that we don't keep the horses in the
> Jules> house.
> But you have not ruled out the possibility of the horses being kept in
> the house, just described where you keep them. [...]
If I describe where I keep everything so that everybody knows where to
keep each thing and I say that we keep the horses in the stable, I'm in
fact saying where they should be.
If policy said:
In the stable, we keep the horses.
In the house, we keep the birds.
as a *definition* of stable and house, respectively, then it is derived
from being a definition that this is not just something that just happens
very often, but this is what policy dictates it should be.
If chapter 2.2 in the policy is not meant to give a set of criteria
to know which priority should be assigned to every package, then where is
such criteria? Do you mean that there is not any criteria at all to decide
whether a package should have required, important, optional or extra
"2f458993d73b7938db754cb7c8de7fdb" (a truly random sig)