Santiago Vila wrote: > With your interpretation, you can install all the default > (required+important+standard) packages, plus any other *single* optional > package at your choice, but if you choose two optional packages at random > then you can found a conflict between them.
I think this is the key point where we disagree. We have a nice conflicts mechanism and I see nothing wrong with using it. It is not unreasonable to have to remove one optional package in favour of another. > BTW: Should not we ask him about the real meaning, instead of saying how > we do interpret the definition of "extra"? We're already doing so :-) I didn't plan on replying any further to this thread, because I don't think we can reach agreement, and I hope to gather opinions from the other denizens of this list. > I'm not a native english speaker, but I think that the phrase is, at > least, ambiguous, and my interpretation may be at least as right as > the yours one. It is clear to me that the whole section about priorities is not written to be analyzed in detail. "What the F*!@<+ is going on, where is `foo'" is not a technical definition. There are two issues here: what policy currently is, and what it should be. I don't think we will agree on the former. Maybe we can reach agreement on the latter. I've stated my opinion, you've stated yours, let's hear it from the others now. Richard Braakman
