On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, Richard Braakman wrote:
> Santiago Vila wrote:
> > * smail is still optional, but since exim is now the standard MTA, smail
> > should be probably downgraded to "extra".
> > * ssmtp conflicts with mail-transport-agent, which exim provides.
> > ssmtp should be probably downgraded to "extra".
> >
> > * lpr is standard, but lprng conflicts with it. lprng should have extra
> > priority.
> >
> > * libstdc++2.9-dev conflicts with libg++272-dev.
> > libg++272-dev should be "extra".
>
> I have moved these to "extra", because they conflict with a package of
> higher priority.
Hello.
Question: Since extra is for packages that conflict with others with
higher priorities, and A and B are conflicting optional packages, does not
effectively downgrading A (or B) to extra make it to conform to the
definition of "extra"? (since optional > extra).
Definition of extra says:
extra
This contains packages that conflict with others with higher
priorities, or are only likely to be useful if you already know
what they are or have specialised requirements.
The priorities that are higher than extra are: required, standard,
important and optional, so this could be more clearly written this way:
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.
Which do you think it is the purpose of downgrading a package to extra
when it does conflict with a package of "higher priority" if it is not to
make required+important+standard+optional a self-consistent set of
packages, then?
Should I really propose a formal amendment to the policy so that this
paragraph is rewritten to be more clear?
Am I misunderstanding the meaning of "higher priorities" when the
paragraph clearly talks about the "extra" priority?
Thanks.
--
"2787c236fcbe5da178058841dde254cd" (a truly random sig)
