Re: changing priority optional->extra
Hi,
general statement for everybody: Please use
Priority: optional
for all your packages which are not *-dbg (Debug) packages. Everything
else is some kind of wrong shyness / understatement because you might
think your package is "not so important". As explained below the
differences between optional and extra are not very large.[1] I have
also read somewhere that not all QA tools we have in Debian are extended
to priority extra packages - but we *really* want to have all those nifty
tools running on our software.
On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 11:53:33PM +0100, Sascha Steinbiss wrote:
> On 05.11.2013 23:37, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > Dear Sascha,
>
> Dear Charles,
>
> > the Priority and Section fields of a package are used once, when
> > they are accepted for the first time in the Debian archive.
> > Further changes have no effect; one has to request the FTP team to
> > change the metadata of the archive directly by opening a bug on the
> > pseudopackage “ftp.debian.org”. For this, using the 'reportbug'
> > tool is recommended.
>
> I see. I remember that during the first upload the priorities were set
> to extra, and only later changed to optional to comply with the DebMed
> policy -- I guess that's where the disparities came from in the first
> place. Do you think it is worth the while to file a change request?
I vaguely remember that these things are changed at some point in time
without filing such requests. However, it seems that the previous
uploads did not showed some "healing" effect - so perhaps filing the
change request might make sense.
> > For the priority, there are not many practical difference between
> > “optional” and “extra”, the main one being that all the “optional”
> > packages must be co-installable. So if genometools does not
> > conflict with another package nor depend on an “extra” package, it
> > may be more straightforward to chose “optional”.
>
> Well, in the current state there are even optional-extra dependencies
> within binary packages from the same source package, such as
> python-genometools vs. libgenometools0, see
> http://qa.debian.org/debcheck.php?dist=testing&package=genometools.
Hmmm, the page is not really up to date (we have 1.5.1-2 in sid+jessie)
but even the version showed there should have optional. BTW, I'd also
check out the 'oldlibs' issue.
> Whatever of both is chosen, I'd really like to straighten these out
> into a consistent state.
Please choose "optional" (except as for the -dbg package - right as it
is in the current d/control file).
> > In the case of the sections, libraries should be in the “libs”
> > section so here it is definitely the source package that has to be
> > corrected. By the way, the override disparities are a minor
> > problem, so there is no need to immediately upload if it is only to
> > propagate the changes.
>
> Great, thanks for the information! I will make the necessary
> adjustments to the packages and upload with the next updated upstream
> release.
Charles is right here to use "Section: libs" for the library. If I
remember right the usage of d-shlibs will check this - one nice reason
to use this for library packages. (We have examples for d-shlibs usage
in our Vcs, the most extensive example is probably staden-io-lib.)
I also agree with Charles, that there is no really need to hurry up
with an upload. I personally would go with a commit to Vcs of the
relevant change to make sure it will not be forgotten. (Make sure
you set target distribution to "UNRELEASED".)
Kind regards
Andreas.
[1] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-priorities
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: