Re: Bug#758234: it's actively harmful

[Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>]

On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 01:37:11PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> I agree with your analysis, although perhaps not the wording. Maybe
> something like:
> 
> # The priority of a package should be based on the functionality
> # of the package itself, and not on whether high-priority packages
> # depend on it. In particular, shared libraries should normally
> # have a low priority, even if required or essential packages
> # happen to depend on them.

If we are going to take that route, we might just make all libraries
optional as a general rule.

> [footnote: This ensures that a
> # high-priority package transitioning to a new library dependency
> # does not result in both the old and new libraries being installed
> # on new systems, due to the old library's priority remaining high.]

However, I don't like the wording of the footnote.

Why would the old library's priority remain high to begin with?

It sounds as "Lack of manpower in the FTP team forced us to change the
rules about package priorities, since they did not change priorities
often enough".

I hope that's not the real reason behind this proposal, because that
would be a problem by itself that should be addressed separately.

Thanks.