On Wednesday 30 August 2006 00:29, Steve Langasek took the opportunity to say: > 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.
Aha. No, package-c conflicts package-b as well. We would have (for example):
Package: mail-transfer-agent
Depends: exim4
Package: exim4
Provides: mail-transfer-agent
Replaces: mail-transfer-agent (??)
Package: postfix
Provides: mail-transfer-agent
Conflicts: mail-transfer-agent
Replaces: mail-transfer-agent
Anyway, this looks a bit ugly.
--
Magnus Holmgren [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(No Cc of list mail needed, thanks)
pgpe1muqeru91.pgp
Description: PGP signature
