Re: Package conflicts outside of Extra
Petr Cech <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 02:21:56PM -0400 , Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Petr Cech <email@example.com> writes:
> > > but it may be conflicts with
> > > 1) older versions of a package (in case of replaced functionality)
> > > 2) renamed package
> > > 3) any other reason I forgot
> > The conflicts may well be important conflicts. I do not propose
> > removing important conflicts.
> > But it is already required be the policy manual that if two packages
> > conflict, one of the must be in Extra. This is a good thing, and it
> > has nothing to do with the reasons for the conflict.
> so take libc6
> Package: libc6
> Version: 2.1.3-10
> Priority: required
> Section: base
> Maintainer: Joel Klecker <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Pre-Depends: ldso (>= 1.9.11-2.1)
> Recommends: locales
> Suggests: glibc-doc
> Conflicts: libc5 (<< 5.4.33-7), libpthread0 (<< 0.7-10), timezone, timezones,
> libwcsmbs, libc6-doc, libtricks, apt (<< 0.3.0), libglib1.2 (<< 1.2.1-2),
> libc6-bin, gconv-modules
> Provides: gconv-modules
> Replaces: timezone, timezones, libc6-dev (<< 2.0.110-1), libc6-bin, locales
> (<< 2.1.3-5), gconv-modules
> Architecture: i386
> according to you, apt and libglib1.2 should go to extra, right?
No, the relevant question is the particular release.
There is no release which has this libc and such an early apt or
I'm more concerned about the nfs-server / nfs-kernel-server conflict I
noticed a bit ago, or the gdm/xdm conflict, which are not version
related and which affect current packages, not historical ones that
mix different distributions.