Re: Is the dependency rule distribution-wise?

[Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>]

On Thu, 18 Feb 1999, Richard Braakman wrote:

> Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > Previously Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > Is this to be considered "distribution-wise"?
> > > i.e. Is this to be applied to hamm, slink, potato, in an independent way?
> > 
> > I think so, because packages that may be required in release N could
> > be obsolete in release N+1 and deserve a lower priority there.
> > 
> > Wichert (wondering if he missed something here)
> 
> What you're missing is that Mr. Vila is looking for more fuel for
> submitting bugreports.  His latest theory is that it's not enough if
> priorities are correct in the unstable distribution; he wants to be
> able to hop up and down until we change them in frozen and stable as
> well.

I think you refer to the fact that libg++272-dev was standard in hamm.
Since this is an extremely wrong priority, I don't see a reason why it
could not be fixed (and in fact, it has been fixed).

Regarding slink, it is not released yet. Is there a reason why we should
not try to have correct priorities for slink? (You seem to imply that
priorities in slink should not be fixed, I would call *that* a "new
theory", because a lot of priorities have been already fixed since slink
was frozen).

Thanks.

-- 
 "1a4ed872c2f93eba3f1836dfe6f8dbf9" (a truly random sig)