Bug#758234: Allow packages to depend on packages of lower priority

[Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl>]

Control: tags -1 +patch

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 04:44:20PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Adam Borowski wrote:
> 
> > What about this wording?:
> Seconded.

Tagging as +patch then as a formal proposal.

> > 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.
> 
> Does this mean we're losing the requirement that two "optional" packages
> are not permitted to conflict with one another?
> 
> In any event, that's probably better to discuss on bug#759260.

My wording assumes packages are judged solely on their own merit, if you'd
want to keep the "extra" requirement then it'd require an edit.

And yeah, #759260 is better for that issue.


Meow!
-- 
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ 
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ A dumb species has no way to open a tuna can.
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ A smart species invents a can opener.
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ A master species delegates.