On Mon, 8 Feb 1999, Peter S Galbraith wrote: > -----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.
Whilst I agree with the content of this modification, it's not going to solve the argument! The content of the disagreement has not been what the phrase 'priorities higher than extra' means. The content of the disagreement has been the implication, which Santiago and I see, and others don't, that other priorities may not conflict with each other. To clarify this, I suggest an extra paragraph along these lines: "Furthermore, at any particular time, the distribution should be self-consistent within the higher 4 priorities. These means that *no* conflicts may exist between packages in these priorities. This does not mean that a required package may not declare a conflict with another required package - but such a conflict must necessarily be either with an earlier version than the current, or with a package which has been withdrawn." Jules /----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------\ | Jelibean aka | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 6 Evelyn Rd | | Jules aka | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Richmond, Surrey | | Julian Bean | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | TW9 2TF *UK* | +----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------+ | War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left. | | When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy. | \----------------------------------------------------------------------/
