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

Re: ITR: febootstrap



On 09/05/28 17:17 -0700, Russ Allbery said ...
> Y Giridhar Appaji Nag <appaji@debian.org> writes:
> 
> > I am not sure if enforcing "extra" in cases other than conflicts,
> > Depends: on lower priority and very clear specialised requirements
> > (elinks-lite, debug symbols etc.) gains us much.
> 
> Oh, yes, I agree.  I wouldn't go to people in general and ask them to
> make their packages priority: extra.  I was only questioning because
> you'd said to raise the priority from extra to optional, and this didn't
> seem like a package where we'd want to make a special effort to move it
> into optional.

Ah, I tend to use "optional unless _really_ extra based on the above
definition" rule.  And I am not particular that the OP _must_ change the
package priority to extra (if that is a conscious decision), however, the
section "devel" is inappropriate (and looks like Rich did not modify the
dh_make templates appropriately).

Regards,

Giridhar

-- 
Y Giridhar Appaji Nag | http://people.debian.org/~appaji/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: