Bug#758234: proposed wording
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 01:37:07AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> What about this wording?:
>
> - Packages must not depend on packages with lower priority values (excluding
> - build-time dependencies). In order to ensure this, the priorities of one
> - or more packages may need to be adjusted.
> + Packages' priorities should depend solely on functionality they directly
> + bring to the user; their priority should not be modified merely because
> + another package makes use of them (this can be expressed via a
> + dependency). In particular, this means that C-like libraries almost never
> + will have a priority above optional.
> +
> + On the other hand, it is allowed to _move_ such elevation to a package
> + that depends on the actual implementation: for example, if we ever declare
> + postgresql-client to be important, it may be elevated despite being an
> + empty package that merely depends on postgresql-client-9.6.
>
> Obviously, this also requires changing the "extra" priority; either by
> #759260 (complete removal) or at least:
>
> - This contains all packages that conflict with others with
> - required, important, standard or optional priorities, or are only
> - likely to be useful if you already know what they are or have
> - specialized requirements (such as packages containing only
> - detached debugging symbols).
> + This priority is deprecated, but may be used to denote packages
> + that are unlikely to be useful even for most users interested
> + in their general field.
Before anything, we should ask the ftp masyer whether they consider the
policy group or themselves responsible for setting the priority.
Cheers,
--
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>
Imagine a large red swirl here.
Reply to: