On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 11:01:35PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.6.1
> Severity: wishlist
>
> After the discussion started in
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2003/debian-policy-200312/msg00020.html,
> I'd now like to formally suggest changing policy.
>
> The following paragraph in section id="priorities" should be changed.
>
> Current text:
> <p>
> 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 may need
> to be adjusted.
> </p>
>
> Proposed text:
> <p>
> Packages with priorities required, important, standard and
> optional must not depend on packages with priority extra
> (excluding build-time dependencies). In order to ensure
> this, the priorities of one or more packages may need to be
> adjusted.
> </p>
I hereby object to this proposal. This is equivalent of getting rid
of priority standard altogether.
Also I disagree with the way fact are presented in the rationale. It
assumes this policy have a much narrower goal than what it was designed.
As an example I recall the definition of 'standard' in policy 2.5.
`standard'
These packages provide a reasonably small but not too limited
character-mode system. This is what will be installed by default
if the user doesn't select anything else. It doesn't include
many large applications.
How will you implement that once you remove the requirement of
standard to be self-contained ?
> Rationale:
> The original wording is a legacy from the times when we didn't have
> packaging tools as sophisticated as apt, and it was aimed to have
> self-contained distributions even if low priorities like extra or
> optional have been left off from the distribution medium.
Not true. Policy is not dictated by tools.
As a rule, I regard with extreme caution policy proposal made to help
some package to become policy-compliant.
Also, having more packages conflicts is a loss, so changing policy to
allow to increase their number is a not a good idea, IMHO.
Cheers,
--
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>
Imagine a large red swirl here.
Attachment:
pgpucSPFCKIva.pgp
Description: PGP signature