Re: Policy regarding virtual packages
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 01:51:39PM +0200, Magnus Holmgren wrote:
> On Monday 28 August 2006 21:06, Steve Langasek took the opportunity to say:
> > On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 04:01:57PM +0200, Magnus Holmgren wrote:
> > > Making mail-transport-agent the empty package, and having it depend only
> > > on exim4 (the default), should work. Of course, exim4 can't conflict with
> > > it (but it's enough that all the others do),
> > No, that's not enough. The exim4 package has file conflicts with the other
> > implementors of m-t-a; there need to be Conflicts declared *directly*
> > between exim4 and the others.
> So "package-a conflicts package-b" is not the same thing as "package-a
> conflicts package-b AND package-b conflicts package-a"? The policy seems to be
> saying that if a package conflicts with another package (asymmetric), then
> they can't be installed at the same time (symmetric).
What I understood was being discussed was a situation where package-a
depends package-b, package-a conflicts package-c, and package-b and
package-c have conflicts at the filesystem level.
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.