On Wed, 6 May 2015 16:09:18 +0200 Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> wrote: > On 2015-05-06 11:21:13 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > > On May 05, Ansgar Burchardt <ansgar@debian.org> wrote: > > > - nfacct: > > > No idea why this is at Priority: important. > > > -> demote to "optional" > > Even extra... This is a very niche package and I have no idea why > > it is being installed everywhere! > > It seems that some developers don't know what they're doing, or > something is completely broken in the Debian system, because it > is claimed to be set to extra in November 2014, when this bug > was closed: > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=758229 > > This bug should be reopened. https://packages.qa.debian.org/n/nfacct.html There were override disparities found in suite unstable: nfacct: Override says net - important, .deb says net - extra After changing the priority in the package, the uploader would have received email warning that the override does not match and explaining how to get the override updated if the change in the package was correct. It is also in the developer reference: https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.html#override-file So, no, there isn't something broken - the uploader needs to file the bug as set out in the developer reference. (BTW - the problems section doesn't transfer to the tracker version, so this notice is only available in the PTS.) -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgphHBwDyPasd.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature