Bug#759260: marked as done (Remove priority "extra", make all corresponding packages priority "optional")
Your message dated Mon, 20 Oct 2014 22:58:55 +0000
with message-id <20141020225855.20789.qmail@11b36247e3b7f0.315fe32.mid.smarden.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#759260: [PATCH v2] Remove priority "extra", make all corresponding packages priority "optional"
has caused the Debian Bug report #759260,
regarding Remove priority "extra", make all corresponding packages priority "optional"
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 this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
759260: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=759260
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
- To: submit@bugs.debian.org
- Subject: debian-policy: allow packages to depend on packages of lower priority
- From: Ansgar Burchardt <ansgar@debian.org>
- Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2014 18:17:32 +0200
- Message-id: <53EE329C.1090505@debian.org>
Package: debian-policy
Hi,
I suggest to drop the following paragraph from 2.5:
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.
This requirement is not fulfilled by many packages and it doesn't seem
to break anything.
Having packages with priority >= standard pull in libraries with lower
priority seems also more useful than raising the priorities of the
libraries as they alone do not satisfy the requirements for higher
priorities: I don't think any library belongs to "Important programs,
including those which one would expect to find on any Unix-like
system.", yet we have many libraries with such priority in the archive.
Ansgar
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 02:24:57PM +0000, Gerrit Pape wrote:
> So I hereby ask for seconds to support this patch, or for your objection
> with reasoning.
Closing this request, no support so this probably isn't the good way
forward.
--- End Message ---
Reply to: