Re: Optional and conflicting packages.

[Richard Braakman <dark@xs4all.nl>]

Santiago Vila wrote:
> Question: Since extra is for packages that conflict with others with
> higher priorities, and A and B are conflicting optional packages, does not
> effectively downgrading A (or B) to extra make it to conform to the
> definition of "extra"? (since optional > extra).

This works both ways.  An optional package that conflicts with an
optional package does not conflict with a package of higher priority.
It would, if it were priority extra, but it isn't, so it doesn't.

> Which do you think it is the purpose of downgrading a package to extra
> when it does conflict with a package of "higher priority" if it is not to
> make required+important+standard+optional a self-consistent set of
> packages, then?

I think it's because removing a standard package to install another
package is a bit unusual, and shouldn't be done without some prior
thought.

> Should I really propose a formal amendment to the policy so that this
> paragraph is rewritten to be more clear?

You call it a clarification; I call it a policy change.  I see no
need to forbid Conflicts relationships between optional packages.

> Am I misunderstanding the meaning of "higher priorities" when the
> paragraph clearly talks about the "extra" priority?

They are only "higher priorities" after you make the package extra.
There's no reason to do so in the first place.

Richard Braakman