Re: [RFC/dpkg PATCH] Introducing an relaxed-Essential-like "Important" field

To: deity@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: [RFC/dpkg PATCH] Introducing an relaxed-Essential-like "Important" field
From: Simon Richter <sjr@debian.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 10:40:28 +0100
Message-id: <[🔎] 56DFEF8C.6010805@debian.org>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 56DFCC61.10001@thykier.net>
References: <[🔎] 20160306012748.GA17886@debian.org> <[🔎] 56DFCC61.10001@thykier.net>

Hi,

On 09.03.2016 08:10, Niels Thykier wrote:

> My personal minor concern is that "Important" might become ambiguous
> since we also have a Priority labelled important[1].

Especially as "Important" basically saves the same purpose as "Priority:
required" did in dselect.

   Simon

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to:

References:
- [RFC/dpkg PATCH] Introducing an relaxed-Essential-like "Important" field
  - From: Julian Andres Klode <jak@debian.org>
- Re: [RFC/dpkg PATCH] Introducing an relaxed-Essential-like "Important" field
  - From: Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net>

Prev by Date: Re: [RFC/dpkg PATCH] Introducing an relaxed-Essential-like "Important" field
Next by Date: Re: [RFC/dpkg PATCH] Introducing an relaxed-Essential-like "Important" field
Previous by thread: Re: [RFC/dpkg PATCH] Introducing an relaxed-Essential-like "Important" field
Next by thread: Re: [RFC/dpkg PATCH] Introducing an relaxed-Essential-like "Important" field
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread