Re: Conflicting packages not of extra priority.

[Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>]

On 8 Feb 1999, John Hasler wrote:

> Santiago Vila writes:
> > 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."
> 
> Don't you need an exception for c/p/r's and such?

No.

Whenever two packages may not be installed in the system at the same time,
only one of them has the "right" to be optional or above, and the other
has to be extra.

The problem is that people is also misreading the definition of optional. 
Definition of optional says: "This is all the software that you might
reasonably want to install if you didn't know what it was or don't have
specialised requirements".

Please note that it says both "all" and "reasonably". If I didn't know
what it was, I surely will not want to install two different packages that
conflict at each other. This is not reasonable.

Some people still think that "everything is optional that isn't required"
but policy explicitly says that this is not the case.

Thanks.

-- 
 "7a172e0b4385976240c15f40f7057cc8" (a truly random sig)