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

Re: Size of Optional - policy and name for new Priority

On Thu, Mar 18, 1999 at 11:45:07PM -0800, Guy Maor wrote:
> This is a good idea, but rather than introduce a new priority, I
> propose that we loosen the definitions of the higher priorities.
> Currently we have
> Essential (a de-facto priority composed of those packages with the
>            Essential flag on)
> Required
> Important
> Standard
> Optional
> Extra
> If our intent is that practically all systems install Standard and
> higher, do we really need four tiers there?  Let's broaden important
> so it includes our current standard software and redefine standard as
> Ian suggested the new priority be defined.

Thanks Guy, this is also what I was thinking.

Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org>            Debian GNU/Linux developer
PGP: E8D68481E3A8BB77 8EE22996C9445FBE            The Source Comes First!
<BenC> cerb: we subscribed you to debian-fight as the moderator
<BenC> cerb: list rules are, 1) no nice emails, 2) no apologies

Attachment: pgpZS3VUdE8Q1.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: