On Thu, Jun 28, 2001 at 12:11:27AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > * Independently, someone thinks libA is cool, and does an clean room
> > implementation that's compatible at both binary and source levels,
> > creating libA-gpl. It's uploaded to Debian. It Conflicts: with
> > libA.
> That's not reasonable. libA isn't distributable by Debian, so there's no
> reason for that Conflicts.
Hrm? What's not reasonable about it?
Debian has lots of Conflicts: against packages that aren't in
Debian. gnat-doc Conflicts: ada-rm, eg, even though ada-rm isn't in any
Debian distribution, eg.
If you'd rather, we can assume that FooCorp had a more liberal license
for libA and B in that past, and Debian used to distribute it. Or you
can assume that someone tried installing both at once, got a dpkg error,
and complained to the maintainer who added it in. Or you can assume that
the author did it just because he felt like it.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you
do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.''
-- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net)
Attachment:
pgp6X8UJJ7qNa.pgp
Description: PGP signature