Fabio Tranchitella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Il giorno mar, 25/07/2006 alle 18.10 -0700, Russ Allbery ha scritto:
>> So, are people sure this is not useful even if the package name doubles >> as a virtual package? It seems to me like it would be. Or are people >> just arguing that that case will never occur? > Conflicts on virtual packages assure that two real packages providing > the virtual one can't be installed togheter, so let's say: > A: provides D; conflicts D > B: provides D; conflicts D > It is not possible to install both pkg A and pkg B because both provide > pkg D and the other package conflicts with it. Right. > If we replace D with A, and remove the self-conflicts/self-provides, the > situation would be: > 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. Okay, I can see how that works. However, I don't see how the self-conflicts *hurts* anything, and some people are currently using this technique, probably because it's easier to remember to always have the Conflits. So what are we gaining by adding a check for this and making people change it? Is there a problem here that we're solving? (Like, for instance, is this making dpkg or other package tools more complicated in ways that getting rid of it would let us fix?) -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]