On Mon, 8 Feb 1999, Jules Bean wrote: > > 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.
I think that, with the proposed change, this is now implicit enough, as long as one accepts that these are definitions, i.e. if a package matches the description, it falls in the appropriate priority. My idea is that the modified paragraph is understood as: "Whenever a package conflicts with other of required, important, standard or optional priority, it has to be extra". Is there anybody who see this as not implied by the modified proposed paragraph? -- "4e6962d2cdbe69956bbb740525f1ef4c" (a truly random sig)
