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

Re: aptitude (priority important) depends on libboost-iostreams (priority optional)


The package "aptitude" is priority "important" and depends on
libboost-iostreams, which is "optional".  This is a violation of
Policy section 2.5.

The request of Bug #588608 is to raise the priority of
libboost-iostreams to "important".  Reading Policy, I note that
"important" means:

          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.[1] 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.

I wouldn't place any of Boost in that category.  In fact, I wouldn't
place "aptitude" in that category, either.

So while raising Boost will "solve" the issue, it seems to me to be
a recipe for runaway priority inflation.

Is there any central authority to vet priority changes?


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: