Re: collapse extra priority into optional and allow conflicts?
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 10:48:12PM +0000, Neil Williams wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 10:12:57PM +0000, Neil Williams wrote:
> >> Whilst most GPE components can be used separately, the full environment
> >> needs to replace the existing desktop whether that be Gnome or KDE or
> >> chaos may ensue due to the different needs of the target environments
> >> and the underlying configuration mechanisms and solutions.
> > How does that warrant a conflict then? It's entirely possible to have both
> > GNOME and KDE installed on a system and choose between them at runtime.
> From earlier in this thread:
> I have uploaded gpe-conf which is a configuration GUI for GPE (embedded)
> and it doesn't sit well with larger, more complex, control centre apps
> like kcontrol or gnome-control-center. It's not that surprising, GPE is
> meant to be a replacement for Gnome on embedded devices that do not have
> the space for Gnome. So I added a Conflict against gnome-control-center
> and kcontrol - it doesn't stop people using the GPE applications in
> other environments but it does prevent the simpler approach of gpe-conf
> causing trouble with the more complex needs of gnome-control-center and
Ok, that rationale doesn't make any sense to me. While there's nothing in
policy that prohibits conflicting with arbitrary packages, the main reason
why conflicts are added is because the packages conflict at the /filesystem/
level. The second most common reason for adding conflicts seems to be
because two packages want to provide the same network service on the same
port, and even that usage has been debated.
Causing packages to conflict merely because they provide overlapping
functionality is not at all the norm, and I don't really think that's a good
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/