Re: Size of Optional - policy and name for new Priority
On Wed, 17 Mar 1999, Ian Jackson wrote:
> It's clear that Optional is far too large. Although we nominally say
> that packages for which you need to have a special requirement before
> you want to install them should go in Extra, this rule hasn't been
> well enforced, and is in any case contentious.
Your proposal is *very* interesting.
However, before introducing a new priority, could we please make the
distribution consistent according to the current priorities?
Some time ago, I proposed a policy amendment for the definition of
Optional, I got two seconds, no objections, and two weeks of time passed.
Is this already policy? May I retitle the bug to [AMENDMENT]?
This would make a lot of packages to be moved from optional to extra.
This way, IMHO, we would have a more clear picture of the issue.
"54b7e942d2f9214b721ab03bbb5e98a2" (a truly random sig)