Bug#758234: Bug#759260: [PATCH] Remove priority "extra", make all corresponding packages priority "optional"
[ CC'ed #758234 as Stuart's questions are also related to that. ]
Stuart Prescott <stuart@debian.org> writes:
>> Gerrit Pape <pape@dbnbgs.smarden.org> writes:
>>> Since discussion on this topic seems to have stopped, I suggest this
>>> patch to remove the priority "extra" for Debian packages.
>>>
>>> All packages that currently are of priority "extra" shall be changed to
>>> priority "optional" for the reasons outlined in message #35 to this
>>> very report
>>
>> I find Priority: extra useful for at least transitional packages,
>> detached debug symbols, and packages conflicting with packages of
>> priority >= important (or maybe >= standard) that will continue to do
>> so, say for example alternative init systems.
>>
>> Currently I therefore object this change, but don't mind limiting what
>> the 'extra' priority should be used for further.
>
> For the purposes of this discussion, it would be very useful if you could
> clarify if the above objection is with your ftp-master hat on or your Debian
> user hat on. (This is not to say that your opinion as a Debian user is not
> important, but I think the context of your remark is quite important -- an
> ftp-master saying "we need priorities" is different to a user saying "I like
> priorities".)
>
> To me, your comment sounds like one being made as a user, as it is not
> commenting on the role of the priorities in the organisation of the archive
> and, because priorities are somehow important in the organisation of the
> archive, that is why they are controlled by ftp-master and not by the
> maintainers. It would be very helpful to have an ftp-master's view as to why
> the Priority field is important for that at all.
That's my view as a user. It's mostly useful to see which packages are
safe to remove, or to search for them. One might achieve the same
results with searching for multiple sections instead.
Technically, I don't think we need Priority: extra. As far as I know,
the main (only?) users of priorities are d-i and debootstrap which only
care about required, important, standard, and ignore the optional/extra
packages.
Related to that: Given d-i/debootstrap are the main users, I think
having d-i ignore the priority of library packages already[1] is an
indication that allowing packages to depend on library packages with
lower priority might not be wrong.
[1] <https://bugs.debian.org/758234#15>
> In a later message, you describe some of the busywork that ftp-master
> control of priorities involves and say:
>
>> Finally I'm not sure if it is ftpmaster's task to tell maintainers of
>> high priority packages what other packages they may depend on. We should
>> by default just trust them.
>
> which makes me think that you see no reason why ftp-master is controlling
> Priority either. With your ftp-master hat on, is there any reason not to
> just rip all that overrides code out of dak and instead accept the values
> from the maintainers? (That directly addresses the other part of this
> discussion, too.)
I think it's useful to be able to change what d-i installs without
having to upload packages unrelated to d-i itself for this.
How this is implemented doesn't matter too much (besides transition
issues). If someone decides we really hate priorities, I think we could
possibly replace them with meta-packages (required -> minimal-system,
important -> base-system, standard -> standard-system, nothing for
optional and extra).
Ansgar
Reply to: