[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: apt-listchanges (Re: Advice on how best to handle non-backwards compatibility)

On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 06:29:19PM +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote:

> On Wed, 2004-01-07 at 17:23, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > For the same reason that other packages that sometimes seem like a good
> > idea by default are not.  That is, they don't meet the definition for
> > Priority: standard.
> I would've thought that if debconf meets the definition of 'standard' or
> 'important' (it's Priority), apt-listchanges (in the NEWS.Debian role)
> merits equal status.

Actually, now that I look, I had thought that 'standard' had the definition
actually applied to 'important', specifically:

    Important programs, including those which one would expect to find on
    any Unix-like system. If the expectation is that an experienced Unix
    person who found it missing would say "What on earth is going on, where
    is foo?", it must be an important package.[4] Other packages without
    which the system will not run well or be usable must also have priority
    important. This does not include Emacs, the X Window System, TeX or any
    other large applications.  The important packages are just a bare
    minimum of commonly-expected and necessary tools. 

And no, I don't think that debconf meets this definition, though it could
certainly be standard:

    These packages provide a reasonably small but not too limited
    character-mode system. This is what will be installed by default if the
    user doesn't select anything else. It doesn't include many large

Neither debconf nor apt-listchanges is a large application.  However,
debconf's dependencies are already priority: important or higher, while two
of those of apt-listchanges (python-apt and ucf) would need to be elevated
to standard.  I could probably eliminate the ucf dependency with some
beefier maintainer scripts, but python-apt would need to be elevated to

 - mdz

Reply to: