On Thursday 21 May 2009, Adeodato Simó wrote: > + Frans Pop (Wed, 20 May 2009 20:00:39 +0200): > > On Wednesday 20 May 2009, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: > > > Still using the minimal install example (without selection > > > "standard system" nor other task), shouldn't them have their > > > priority lowered then? > > > > Possibly. But that is something that probably should have been done > > *before* lenny was released. I doubt the FTP masters would be willing > > to correct it now. > > > > But that is where this issue should be reported: against the > > "ftp.debian.org" pseudo package; it is not a Debian Installer issue. > > No. The priority of the libraries is correct, at least correct > according to the ongoing policy "no package should depend on a package > of lower priority". That's why those libraries are in > important/standard, because some package there depends on them.
If there _is_ a package with prio Important that depends on them, then why isn't that package getting installed? I did not check really carefully, but for libsasl2-2 and libgnutls26 I did not see any such packages in the list of reverse deps, only ones of prio Standard. Which would mean that those libs should also be prio Standard, not Important. I reported a number of priority inconsistencies myself before the release and those were fixed. But it seems as if the FTP masters have not done an extensive check for Lenny to update all such inconsistencies. IIRC such checks were done for past releases. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
