Bug#758234: proposed wording
What about this wording?:
- 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.
+ Packages' priorities should depend solely on functionality they directly
+ bring to the user; their priority should not be modified merely because
+ another package makes use of them (this can be expressed via a
+ dependency). In particular, this means that C-like libraries almost never
+ will have a priority above optional.
+
+ On the other hand, it is allowed to _move_ such elevation to a package
+ that depends on the actual implementation: for example, if we ever declare
+ postgresql-client to be important, it may be elevated despite being an
+ empty package that merely depends on postgresql-client-9.6.
Obviously, this also requires changing the "extra" priority; either by
#759260 (complete removal) or at least:
- 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
- specialized requirements (such as packages containing only
- detached debugging symbols).
+ This priority is deprecated, but may be used to denote packages
+ that are unlikely to be useful even for most users interested
+ in their general field.
--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ A dumb species has no way to open a tuna can.
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ A smart species invents a can opener.
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ A master species delegates.
Reply to: