On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 05:22:59PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Anthony Towns:
> > For woody, it'd be nice if we could use the Priority field consistently.
> It would be even nicer if we could use the override file consistently,
Well, yes, that too, obviously.
> Packages may not depend on packages with lower priority values
> (excluding build-time dependencies). If this does happen, one of the
> priority values will have to be adapted.
Hmmm. You're quoting from an old policy there, it's "must not depend"
and "must be adjusted" these days.
> I have been reporting violations of this rule since a long time ago,
> but they have never been fixed completely. As of today, we have not
> even achieved to remove violations of this policy regarding required,
> important or standard packages.
From browsing the ftp.d.o bug reports, it looks like you started doing
this during the slink deep freeze, so it got left for potato, and I'm
fairly sure all of this stuff got ignored during the potato freeze in
favour of fixing real bugs and hoping the boot-floppies would eventually
work.
> If you convince the ftp.debian.org maintainers to fix *all* the bugs
> (not only those of important severity), fine.
This isn't just a matter of having the ftpmasters finally get around to
doing stuff, some things probably need recompiling, and some thought is
definitely needed as to whether priorities should be raised or lowered.
> If not, I object to any change in the priority system until we achieve
> a consistent system with the current priorities.
Heh. I don't think we can get a consistent system until we make our
priorities make sense. :)
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``Thanks to all avid pokers out there''
-- linux.conf.au, 17-20 January 2001
Attachment:
pgpYPnmFOEkEO.pgp
Description: PGP signature