Re: Conflicting packages not of extra priority.

[Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>]

On 8 Feb 1999, Stephen Zander wrote:

> >>>>> "Santiago" == Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es> writes:
>     Santiago> If policy said:
> 
>     Santiago> In the stable, we keep the horses.  In the house, we
>     Santiago> keep the birds.
> 
>     Santiago> as a *definition* of stable and house, respectively,
>     Santiago> then it is derived from being a definition that this is
>     Santiago> not just something that just happens very often, but
>     Santiago> this is what policy dictates it should be.
> 
> *If* you defined stable & house that way I'd agree with you.  But the
> current wording of policy does not *explicitly* make such definitions.
> [...]

The packaging manual says:

  4.2.9 Section and Priority

[...]

See the Debian policy manual for the priorities in use and the criteria
for selecting the priority for a Debian package, [...]


I think that what I'm calling priority definitions are actually to be
considered as well as the criteria for selecting the priority for Debian
packages.

However, if you think they are not the criteria, you might want to submit
a bug against policy saying "policy does not contain criteria for
selecting priorities for Debian packages even if packaging manual says
it does".

Make a formal proposal; get seconders; call a vote.

-- 
 "bc36b1eaaa4ec68db773f69a57875864" (a truly random sig)