package debian-policy user firstname.lastname@example.org usertags 196367 + discussion tags 196367 + patch thanks Ben Finney <email@example.com> writes: > Policy's current wording (in §2.5 and §5.6.6) strongly implies that an > erroneous Priority value is a Policy-violating bug in the package with > that priority. There is consensus that should not the case, especially > now that ftpmaster maintains Priority values in an override file; so > the Policy wording needs to be improved. > > > There are open questions: Meanwhile, here is my take on a patch to address this bug. It makes assumptions about some of the answers to the open questions, so it is likely wrong or incomplete.
=== modified file 'policy.sgml' --- policy.sgml 2010-08-18 20:55:34 +0000 +++ policy.sgml 2010-08-28 00:43:43 +0000 @@ -783,9 +783,16 @@ <p> Packages must not depend on packages with lower priority - values (excluding build-time dependencies). In order to + values (excluding build-time dependencies). In order to ensure this, the priorities of one or more packages may need - to be adjusted. + to be adjusted.<footnote> + The Priority field of an existing Debian package does not + determine the priority of that package; + see <ref id="f-Priority">. For this reason, the package + maintainer cannot fix this directly, and it is not + recommended to file bugs against packages whose source + declares an incorrect Priority field. + </footnote> </p> </sect> @@ -2842,6 +2849,13 @@ It also gives the default for the same field in the binary packages. </p> + + <p> + Once a package is in Debian, this field no longer + determines the priority of the package in the archive. + Instead, the Debian ftpmaster team maintains priority + values in the “override file”. + </p> </sect1> <sect1 id="f-Package">
-- \ “I do not believe in forgiveness as it is preached by the | `\ church. We do not need the forgiveness of God, but of each | _o__) other and of ourselves.” —Robert G. Ingersoll | Ben Finney <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Description: PGP signature