[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#33076: PROPOSED] Definition of extra priority



On Wed, 10 Feb 1999, Santiago Vila wrote:

> Ok. To make it fully clear, I hereby change my earlier proposal to
> this one:
> 
> extra
> 
> "This contains all 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."
> 
> 
> The difference with respect to the previous proposal is merely the
> addition of the "all" word, as suggested by Stephen Zander, so that it is
> clearly understood that whenever a package fits this description, it has
> to be of extra priority.
> 
> 
> [ Mmm, do I need seconds again? ]

You probably do.

In any case, I second this new propsal.

Jules

/----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------\
|  Jelibean aka  | jules@jellybean.co.uk         |  6 Evelyn Rd	       |
|  Jules aka     | jules@debian.org              |  Richmond, Surrey   |
|  Julian Bean   | jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk        |  TW9 2TF *UK*       |
+----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------+
|  War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left.             |
|  When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy.          |
\----------------------------------------------------------------------/


Reply to: