On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Steve McIntyre wrote: > On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Santiago Vila wrote: > > >On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Steve McIntyre wrote: > > > >> >If there are optional packages that conflict with each other, we should > >> >choose one to stay in optional and move the others to extra. (Or change/ > >> >clarify the definition on the policy manual). > >> > >> The manual should be fixed IMHO - there are lots of places where this is > >> bogus. Consider the xserver packages, for example... > > > >This is not a good example. > >The xserver packages do not conflict at each other. > >You can install all of them. > > Hmmm, guess so. My mistake. But surely there are some optional packages > that can legitimately conflict...?
Please define "legitimately". The way I read the definition of optional and extra, a conflict between two optional packages is never "legitimate". Please note that a suboptimal packaging does not legitimate the conflict. For example, my unzip and unzip-crypt packages do conflict at each other, and they are optional, so I should probably make them compatible, like pgp-i and pgp-us, for example. [ And of course, I will not mind that unzip-crypt is demoted to extra until I repackage them ]. (Yeah, I put my own packages as examples of suboptimal packaging! I hope the pgp-i and pgp-us example will help you to see that surely most of these conflicts are gratuituous). -- "de678b3c48777bfcbc98fe1bb004351d" (a truly random sig)
