Bug#65578: marked as done ([OLD PROPOSAL] extra-Debian packages should have extra Priority)
Your message dated Sun, 28 Mar 2004 17:45:26 +0200
with message-id <20040328154526.GD25294@mails.so.argh.org>
and subject line Has been fixed for more than six month
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 13 Jun 2000 02:51:31 +0000
>From kgh12351@nifty.ne.jp Mon Jun 12 21:51:31 2000
Return-path: <kgh12351@nifty.ne.jp>
Received: from smtp2.nifty.ne.jp [202.219.63.54]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 2 (Debian))
id 131gnb-0008G4-00; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 21:51:31 -0500
Received: from localhost (iwta003n064.ppp.infoweb.ne.jp [211.2.112.160])
by smtp2.nifty.ne.jp (8.9.3+3.2W/3.7W-991025) with ESMTP id LAA23274
for <submit@bugs.debian.org>; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 11:51:27 +0900 (JST)
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
X-Debbugs-Cc: sano@debian.org
Subject: [PROPOSED] extra-Debian packages should have extra Priority
From: Taketoshi Sano <sano@debian.org>
X-Mailer: Mew version 1.94.1 on Emacs 20.6 / Mule 4.0 (HANANOEN)
X-fingerprint: DA 00 13 8C 49 BB 60 BE A4 54 3D AF 2E CE 28 DD
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <20000613104835C.kgh12351@kgh12351.nifty.ne.jp>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:48:35 +0900
Sender: Taketoshi Sano <kgh12351@nifty.ne.jp>
X-Dispatcher: imput version 991025(IM133)
Lines: 86
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.1.1.1
Severity: wishlist
The current policy document describes:
2.2. Priorities
---------------
Each package is given a certain _priority_ value, which is included in
the package's _control record_. This information is used in the
Debian package management tool to separate high-priority packages from
less-important packages.
(clip)
`optional'
(In a sense everything is optional that isn't required, but
that's not what is meant here.) This is all the software that you
might reasonably want to install if you didn't know what it was
or don't have specialized requirements. This is a much larger
system and includes the X Window System, a full TeX distribution,
and many applications.
`extra'
This contains all packages that conflict with others with
required, important, standard or optional priorities, or are only
likely to be useful if you already know what they are or have
specialised requirements.
And some of the current packages in our 'contrib' and 'non-free' area
(thus, which don't form the _Debian GNU/Linux distribution_) have 'optional'
Priority. The explanation of 'optional' Priority above states that
"This is all the software that you might reasonably want to install if you
didn't know what it was of don't have specialized requirements."
Is it true for extra-Debian (in the meaning of distribution) packages ?
I think that users should know what they uses when they use the packages
in some "extra-Debian" archives (including our "contrib" and "non-free"
section). The license condition on some packages may require that user
of such software must acknowledge and accept that license it impose.
And I think (as proposed in another wishlist report) we should inform
our users of what is Debian and what is not, much more clearly.
So I propose that all the 'extra-Debian' packages should use extra
Priority for identification. (maybe better to create and use another
priority, but it requires the modification of dpkg, so I propose what
we can do now.)
=== before modification ===
`extra'
This contains all packages that conflict with others with
required, important, standard or optional priorities, or are only
likely to be useful if you already know what they are or have
specialised requirements.
=== after modification ===
`extra'
This contains all packages that conflict with others with
required, important, standard or optional priorities, or are only
likely to be useful if you already know what they are or have
specialised requirements. All the packages do not form the _Debian
GNU/Linux distribution_ should use this priority.
=== patch on sgml for this modification ===
--- policy.sgml.orig Tue Jun 13 10:00:17 2000
+++ policy.sgml.proposed Tue Jun 13 10:47:17 2000
@@ -580,7 +580,9 @@
with required, important, standard or optional
priorities, or are only likely to be useful if you
already know what they are or have specialised
- requirements.
+ requirements. All the packages do not form the
+ <em>Debian GNU/Linux distribution</em> should use this
+ priority.
</p>
</item>
</taglist></p>
Thanks.
--
Taketoshi Sano: <sano@debian.org>,<sano@debian.or.jp>,<kgh12351@nifty.ne.jp>
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 65578-done) by bugs.debian.org; 28 Mar 2004 15:45:28 +0000
>From aba@not.so.argh.org Sun Mar 28 07:45:28 2004
Return-path: <aba@not.so.argh.org>
Received: from mail-in.m-online.net [62.245.150.237]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1B7cTY-0007Po-00; Sun, 28 Mar 2004 07:45:28 -0800
Received: from mail.m-online.net (svr14.m-online.net [192.168.3.144])
by svr8.m-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FA634BF4E;
Sun, 28 Mar 2004 17:45:27 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from sol.so.argh.org (ppp-82-135-4-50.mnet-online.de [82.135.4.50])
by mail.m-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A8636AA10;
Sun, 28 Mar 2004 17:45:27 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from aba by sol.so.argh.org with local (Exim 4.22 #1 (Debian) [+prerelease])
id 1B7cTW-00076R-AV; Sun, 28 Mar 2004 17:45:26 +0200
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 17:45:26 +0200
From: Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org>
To: 23661-done@bugs.debian.org, 27205-done@bugs.debian.org,
33251-done@bugs.debian.org, 36151-done@bugs.debian.org,
37999-done@bugs.debian.org, 39125-done@bugs.debian.org,
42870-done@bugs.debian.org, 43724-done@bugs.debian.org,
51473-done@bugs.debian.org, 54985-done@bugs.debian.org,
62768-done@bugs.debian.org, 63598-done@bugs.debian.org,
65578-done@bugs.debian.org, 71805-done@bugs.debian.org,
78014-done@bugs.debian.org, 79541-done@bugs.debian.org,
82595-done@bugs.debian.org, 83669-done@bugs.debian.org,
85500-done@bugs.debian.org, 88058-done@bugs.debian.org,
100586-done@bugs.debian.org, 101162-done@bugs.debian.org,
102917-done@bugs.debian.org, 109171-done@bugs.debian.org,
119559-done@bugs.debian.org, 191036-done@bugs.debian.org,
197835-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Has been fixed for more than six month
Message-ID: <20040328154526.GD25294@mails.so.argh.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
X-Editor: Vim http://www.vim.org/
Delivered-To: 65578-done@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no
version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
X-Spam-Level:
Hi,
this bug was set to the status "fixed" more than six month ago, so I'm
closing it now. For an announcement of this, see
http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2004/debian-policy-200403/msg00042.html
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
Reply to: