On Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 09:14:33PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > Thank you, the wording in the current policy seems to imply that > providing alternate frontends is an option only open to higher-priority > packages, whereas this is much clearer. Seconded. Thanks for your support. I would like to make sure that people understand that this policy does nothing to counter Policy 2.2, though: Packages must not depend on packages with lower priority values (excluding build-time dependencies). In order to ensure this, the priorities of one or more packages must be adjusted. In other words, when either of the first two options are exercised: * the part of a package with X-specific components must have a priority no higher than the packages on which it depends (including any X packages); * an X-dependent alternative version of a package must have a priority no higher than the packages on which it depends (including any X packages). I feel that this logically follows from the proposal and from existing policy, but I wanted to be absolutely clear about it. -- G. Branden Robinson | I suspect Linus wrote that in a Debian GNU/Linux | complicated way only to be able to have branden@debian.org | that comment in there. http://www.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Lars Wirzenius
Attachment:
pgptBJCgFIP68.pgp
Description: PGP signature