Re: [SCM] science branch, master, updated. 62a9741420de5201ef8c55e8db751b3709150359
Andreas Tille <email@example.com> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 04:16:30PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
>> My own experience while learning Debian is that "extra" is very often
>> chosen by mistake
> I share this feeling 100%. I preached frequently on mailing lists and
> changed very frequently in team Vcs es from extra to optional.
The problem seems to be that this is somehow not always propagated to
the archive: for example the "erfa" package has "optional" priority
since its second release in d/control (2 years ago), but the package in
the archive still shows "extra". I have no idea why this is not
*If* it would be propagated, in principle that would be a simple mass
bug filing for all packages that have "extra", but no "conflicts",
right? ("wishlist" ofcourse).
I however feel a bit unhappy with using "extra" packages to be installed
with the initial tasks selection, due to potential conflicts. If we just
ignore this problem, we could also ignore the policy here and let
"optional" debian-science tasks "recommend" packages with "extra".