Re: Is the dependency rule distribution-wise?

[Martin Schulze <joey@finlandia.Infodrom.North.DE>]

Santiago Vila 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).

Unfortunately there is a reason for not doing this: Don't change too
much in frozen.  I would like to see corrected priorities as well,
but I have to accept that we should have corrected them four months
ago before slink went into frozen for the first time.

Regards,

	Joey

-- 
GNU does not eliminate all the world's problems, only some of them.
                                                -- The GNU Manifesto

Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.