On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, Richard Braakman wrote:
> There are two issues here: what policy currently is, and what it should
> be. I don't think we will agree on the former. [...]
I really hope that Ian Jackson's word should be enough, since he wrote
those definitions.
[ Ian told me I could forward these messages here ].
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 12:47:18 +0000 (GMT)
From: Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Bug#29874: Optional and conflicting packages.
Santiago Vila writes ("Re: Bug#29874: Optional and conflicting packages."):
> I would like to hear from you about this (see thread in
> debian-policy).
I'm rather behind on debian-policy atm.
> In the definition of extra priority we can read:
>
> 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.
>
> Does not the "higher priorities" refer to required, important, standard or
> optional packages, which are the ones that are higher than extra?
Yes, it does.
Ian.
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 14:43:40 +0000 (GMT)
From: Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Bug#29874: Optional and conflicting packages.
Santiago Vila writes ("Re: Bug#29874: Optional and conflicting packages."):
...
> Excellent!
>
> Does this mean, then, that whenever two optional packages are conflicting,
> at least one of the two should be moved to "extra"?
>
> Is this not intended to make easier the installing process, by making sure
> that the user will not found any conflict as long as he/she does not try
> to install any "extra" package?
Yes, that's exactly the idea.
Ian.
--
"c4b67269a37beacd8bd1499cb406631e" (a truly random sig)
