Re: Self-conflicts and self-depends
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 00:22:54 +1000, Hamish Moffatt <email@example.com> said:
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 01:17:30PM +0200, Fabio Tranchitella wrote:
>> A: nothing;
>> B: provides A; conflicts A
>> ... which produces the same result, because you can't install both A
>> and B because B conflicts with (the real package) A.
>> For me, self-conflicts make no sense in every situation.
> Now extend for more than two packages. Should each package list every
> other, require every package to be updated when another is added?
B: provides A; conflicts A
C: provides A; conflicts A
D: provides A; conflicts A
E: provides A; conflicts A
F: provides A; conflicts A
> Instead they can all provide and conflict a common virtual package.
Or, yes, they can do that. (In fact, the above is basically the same
thing, except that package A happens to be named the same as the virtual
package.) But this doesn't give any reason for why package A needs to
conflict with itself.
Hubert Chan - email & Jabber: firstname.lastname@example.org - http://www.uhoreg.ca/
PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA (Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net)
Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA