Re: Libraries with "extra" priority?
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 07:31:37AM +0000, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> >This "must" policy requirement has long gone past "pointless" deep into the
> >"actively harmful" land. It is universally ignored, and I'd advise you to
> >do so too.
>
> what about changing the policy? I admit I never cared too much about
> such priorities, and I would like it to be relaxed/removed in policy whenever
> possible.
#758234, which is somehow stalled for years, calls for removal of this
requirement. I'd go further and require that packages should not[1] have
an elevated/reduced priority only because of a reverse-dependency. Packages
should be judged only based on functionality they actually bring to the
user rather than on implementation details. Such an elevation may be
transferred to a reverse dependency (a metapackage, or, say, from
postgresql-9.6-client to postgresql-client despite the latter being empty)
but not the other way.
[1]. Not "must not" only because it's a bad idea to force everyone to update
priorities at once.
--
An imaginary friend squared is a real enemy.
Reply to: