Re: Debian science policy: Priorities field

[debian-devel@liska.ath.cx (Оlе Ѕtrеісhеr)]

Thibaut Paumard <thibaut.paumard@obspm.fr> writes:
> I think the rationale is that Science packages "are only likely to be
> useful if you already know what they are". However they are not at all
> like the stated example (detached debugging symbols, so I do believe
> that the meaning of the Policy is that most of our packages should be of
> Priority "optional" and our Science Policy is sort of wrong.

I would think the same. The majority of the science packages are not
just useful for a particular case, where you are going to search exactly
this one package (this is how I would interpret the Debian Policy): a
libcerf(-dev) package is interesting for anyone who needs an error
function.

Also, I am wondering about the "'extra' if this is permitted by the
Debian Policy" statement in the Science policy, since the Debian Policy
simply has no restriction for "extra" packages, but for optional.

So, my interpretation is that this was just mixed up. It, however,
confuses people.

Best

Ole