Bug#759260: Bug#758234: Bug#759260: [PATCH] Remove priority "extra", make all corresponding packages priority "optional"
Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> writes:
> Ansgar Burchardt <ansgar@debian.org> writes:
>> Stuart Prescott <stuart@debian.org> writes:
>>>> I find Priority: extra useful for at least transitional packages,
>>>> detached debug symbols, and packages conflicting with packages of
>>>> priority >= important (or maybe >= standard) that will continue to do
>>>> so, say for example alternative init systems.
>
> For detached debug symbols and transitional packages, I think using the
> section makes more sense here, since that provides more precise
> information than the priority can provide. For example, transitional
> packages are a different sort of "extra" than debug symbols; both can be
> removed from the system without breaking important functionality, but the
> transitional packages are more likely to be something one wants to remove
> automatically.
Hmm, yes. Having two fields where one field (Section: debug) implies the
value of the other (Priority: extra) is probably a sign that the less
expressive one is redundant.
> Could you say more about why you think conflicting packages having a
> separate priority from optional is useful? When would people use that
> priority information, and how?
I think your later sentence describes my use case quite well:
> I like priorities better than meta-packages for this purpose, and I think
> the standard/important/required distinction really is useful, even outside
> of d-i. I've used it as a user when figuring out which parallel
> implementation of something to install.
Of course this will not apply to all conflicting optional packages, but
in some cases there will be a preferred choice. In this case
alternatives could have a lower priority (i.e. extra).
Ansgar
Reply to: