On Sat, 2005-07-30 at 08:55 -0700, Matt Brubeck wrote: > skaller wrote: > > > The problem is that you CAN install a package B which declares a > > conflict with A, and then install A, which does not declare the > > conflict. The conflict exists, nevertheless. > > This isn't true. If B is installed and B declares "Conflicts: A" then > dpkg will refuse to install package A unless package B is removed.
Really?? > (Looking at the earlier messages in this thread, I think a > misunderstanding caused other posters to lead you to this conclusion.) I see .. thanks! In that case everything is fine! > "When one binary package declares a conflict with another using a > Conflicts field, dpkg will refuse to allow them to be installed on the > system at the same time" (Debian Policy 7.3). As it should be!! > You can test this yourself to see that it works correctly. For example, > try to install "cfengine2" (Conflicts: cfengine) and then "cfengine". I'll take your word for it .. in this case, why is there a problem with the udev thing? I thought that the problem arose from the fact this didn't work .. but now you say that isn't the case .. then I can't understand the original problem, and why 'no-X' package was suggested.. :) -- John Skaller <skaller at users dot sourceforge dot net>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
