Re: Conflicting packages not of extra priority.

[Stephen Zander <gibreel@pobox.com>]

>>>>> "Santiago" == Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es> writes:
    Santiago> If policy said:

    Santiago> In the stable, we keep the horses.  In the house, we
    Santiago> keep the birds.

    Santiago> as a *definition* of stable and house, respectively,
    Santiago> then it is derived from being a definition that this is
    Santiago> not just something that just happens very often, but
    Santiago> this is what policy dictates it should be.

*If* you defined stable & house that way I'd agree with you.  But the
current wording of policy does not *explicitly* make such definitions.
Your proposed change to policy does explicitly define extra.

	"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."

Make a formal proposal; get seconders; call a vote.

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