On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 00:22:54 +1000, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 01:17:30PM +0200, Fabio Tranchitella wrote: >> A: nothing; >> B: provides A; conflicts A >> >> ... which produces the same result, because you can't install both A >> and B because B conflicts with (the real package) A. >> >> For me, self-conflicts make no sense in every situation. > Now extend for more than two packages. Should each package list every > other, require every package to be updated when another is added? A: nothing; B: provides A; conflicts A C: provides A; conflicts A D: provides A; conflicts A E: provides A; conflicts A F: provides A; conflicts A . . . > Instead they can all provide and conflict a common virtual package. Or, yes, they can do that. (In fact, the above is basically the same thing, except that package A happens to be named the same as the virtual package.) But this doesn't give any reason for why package A needs to conflict with itself. -- Hubert Chan - email & Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.uhoreg.ca/ PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA (Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net) Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
