Bug#1124443: debian-policy: misleading information about Priority field in upgrading checklist

[Aurelien Jarno <aurel32@debian.org>]

Hi Russ,

On 2026-01-01 11:41, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Aurelien Jarno <aurel32@debian.org> writes:
> 
> > I don't know what is the maximum allowed length for the upgrading 
> > checklist. Waht about that:
> 
> >   It is no longer recommended to specify the Priority field in source
> >   package control files.  If the field is omitted, dpkg defaults to
> >   "optional" for the source package priority, and binary packages
> >   inherit the priority from the source package.
> 
> How about:
> 
>     Specifying the ``Priority`` field in source package control fields is
>     no longer recommended unless the priority needs to be changed from the
>     default. If the field is omitted, the default source package priority
>     is ``optional``, and binary packages inherit the priority from the
>     source package.
> 
> It's not really relevant to the user that dpkg is the component that sets
> the default, only what the semantics are. I think this wording may also
> make it clearer that you do still need to think about whether you should
> provide Priority because the default is wrong.

Thanks for proposing this, I find it quite good.

Regards,
Aurelien

-- 
Aurelien Jarno                          GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B
aurelien@aurel32.net                     http://aurel32.net