On Thu, Nov 22, 2007 at 07:41:10PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > On Thu, Nov 22, 2007 at 04:00:28PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: > > Unlike "required", "important" may include packages following other > > conditions not related to this one (and in fact, most of them aren't), so > > my proposal is to clarify it in favour of "required". See attachment. > > I don't see an attachment. Ah, crap. Here it is now. -- Robert Millan <GPLv2> I know my rights; I want my phone call! <DRM> What use is a phone call, if you are unable to speak? (as seen on /.)
diff -urp debian-policy-3.7.2.2.old/policy.sgml debian-policy-3.7.2.2/policy.sgml --- debian-policy-3.7.2.2.old/policy.sgml 2006-10-03 00:36:50.000000000 +0200 +++ debian-policy-3.7.2.2/policy.sgml 2007-11-23 08:21:25.000000000 +0100 @@ -695,9 +695,8 @@ trying to produce, amongst other things, a free Unix. </footnote> - Other packages without which the system will not run - well or be usable must also have priority - <tt>important</tt>. This does + Other packages needed to make the system usable + must also have priority <tt>important</tt>. This does <em>not</em> include Emacs, the X Window System, TeX or any other large applications. The <tt>important</tt> packages are just a bare minimum of
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature