Bug#33076: #33076: PROPOSED] Definition of extra priority

[Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>]

On Mon, 8 Feb 1999, Jules Bean wrote:

> > Santiago Vila wrote:
> > 
> > > I propose that we clarify this by saying explicitly which are the
> > > priorities higher than extra. The modified wording would be:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > "This contains packages that conflict with others with required,
> > > important, standard or optional priorities, or are only likely to be
> > > useful if you already know what they are or have specialised requirements."
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I am now looking for seconds for this proposal.
> 
> Whilst I agree with the content of this modification, it's not going to
> solve the argument!
> 
> The content of the disagreement has not been what the phrase 'priorities
> higher than extra' means.
> 
> The content of the disagreement has been the implication, which Santiago
> and I see, and others don't, that other priorities may not conflict with
> each other.

I think that, with the proposed change, this is now implicit enough, as
long as one accepts that these are definitions, i.e. if a package matches
the description, it falls in the appropriate priority.

My idea is that the modified paragraph is understood as:

"Whenever a package conflicts with other of required, important, standard
or optional priority, it has to be extra".

Is there anybody who see this as not implied by the modified proposed
paragraph?

-- 
 "4e6962d2cdbe69956bbb740525f1ef4c" (a truly random sig)