-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I second this proposal. Santiago Vila wrote: > I propose that we clarify this by saying explicitly which are the > priorities higher than extra. The modified wording would be: > > > "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." > > > I am now looking for seconds for this proposal. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: noconv Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface iQCVAwUBNr70SbwVH8jSqROhAQGywAQAmBiV1yyKexDsZG28Uc1W1HIoWAXYmEth RBF2ZiWjADLp8z4hmxgJivyyl/vFbcBKK76wVXnNxjZ/pNIR19qj6A/lRfHhmWzs 7etjF/R5J3cZt40fvV8cbXZuz+XrtDomZGDy3CggsVPVPoQpRXAzK3VxoNNHxruy A+GdLcCLsg4= =unZC -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
