Re: Conflicting packages not of extra priority.

[Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>]

On 8 Feb 1999, John Hasler wrote:

> I wrote:
> > Don't you need an exception for c/p/r's and such?
> 
> Jules Bean writes:
> > No.  They're new versions, essentially.  New versions with different
> > names.  
> 
> > If A c/p/r B, then B will either be removed from the dist (the common
> > case) or moved to extra (if there is a reason that some people might
> > prefer B).
> 
> I realize that.  However, someone earlier was complaining that Santiago's
> interpretation must be wrong because it would force packages that c/p/r
> into Extra, and this is obviously wrong.  The fact that he was able to
> misinterpret it this way implies to me that it isn't entirely clear.

I don't want to personalize things, but the same person that said that
moving a certain amount of optional packages to extra is "ridiculous"
seemed to think that conflicting packages were only allowed between
packages of the same priority.

This is not interpreting the policy, this is saying "I think the policy
should be another one", which is very different.

If package A conflicts with package B, they conflict regardless of
A also replacing, providing or whatever else B.

-- 
 "283c24a18b51fc82100e40dbb7c2aa16" (a truly random sig)