Santiago Vila wrote: > 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).
This works both ways. An optional package that conflicts with an optional package does not conflict with a package of higher priority. It would, if it were priority extra, but it isn't, so it doesn't. > 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? I think it's because removing a standard package to install another package is a bit unusual, and shouldn't be done without some prior thought. > Should I really propose a formal amendment to the policy so that this > paragraph is rewritten to be more clear? You call it a clarification; I call it a policy change. I see no need to forbid Conflicts relationships between optional packages. > Am I misunderstanding the meaning of "higher priorities" when the > paragraph clearly talks about the "extra" priority? They are only "higher priorities" after you make the package extra. There's no reason to do so in the first place. Richard Braakman
