Re: Self-conflicts and self-depends
Fabio Tranchitella <firstname.lastname@example.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.
> 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 (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>