Re: Self-conflicts and self-depends
Fabio Tranchitella <kobold@debian.org> writes:
> Il giorno mar, 25/07/2006 alle 18.10 -0700, Russ Allbery ha scritto:
>> So, are people sure this is not useful even if the package name doubles
>> as a virtual package? It seems to me like it would be. Or are people
>> just arguing that that case will never occur?
> Conflicts on virtual packages assure that two real packages providing
> the virtual one can't be installed togheter, so let's say:
> A: provides D; conflicts D
> B: provides D; conflicts D
> It is not possible to install both pkg A and pkg B because both provide
> pkg D and the other package conflicts with it.
Right.
> If we replace D with A, and remove the self-conflicts/self-provides, the
> situation would be:
> 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.
Okay, I can see how that works.
However, I don't see how the self-conflicts *hurts* anything, and some
people are currently using this technique, probably because it's easier to
remember to always have the Conflits. So what are we gaining by adding a
check for this and making people change it? Is there a problem here that
we're solving? (Like, for instance, is this making dpkg or other package
tools more complicated in ways that getting rid of it would let us fix?)
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: