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

Re: Package priorities: optional vs extra

[Lionel Elie Mamane]
> I recently found some packages in at an IMHO totally wrong priority
> in Debian.

Yeah.  I've been grumbling about optional vs. extra for years.  Nobody
wants to consider his own packages 'extra' because every maintainer
feels his own packages are Really Useful.  This is a side effect of
common human hubris, and it's probably pointless to fight it.

In practice, 'extra' is mainly used when Policy forces you to use it:
that is, if your package conflicts with another package which has
priority optional or higher.  That the 'extra' priority should have
devolved to this absolutely redundant tag is unfortunate, but that's
life.  (Likewise, I strongly suspect that in many cases, 'optional'
really means "although my package is something I think almost everyone
should have installed, the ftpmasters would almost certainly refuse to
let me describe it as 'important' or 'standard'.")

Probably the best solution is to change Policy to say that 'optional'
and 'extra' mean exactly the same thing, and remove the requirement
that all 'optional' packages be able to coexist.  Then 'extra' can be
phased out, since maintainers don't seem to actually want it.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: