-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Serafeim Zanikolas schrieb:
> Hi,
>
> Is it OK to reduce update-inetd's priority to optional, to agree with the
> archive admin's override? (It should be, as all its rdepends are at most
> optional)
>
> It should be Priority: standard only if people use it interactively, and
> expect it to be part of a standard installation (but I'm guessing that this
> isn't common).
>
> update-inetd_4.32_all.deb: package says priority is important, override says
> optional.
>
In my opinion (and I sponsored this upload) it is okay. In my opinion
there is no need that this packages has a bigger importance than
optional, this should fit for this package.
You may report this against ftp.debian.org.
- --
/*
Mit freundlichem Gruß / With kind regards,
Patrick Matthäi
GNU/Linux Debian Developer
E-Mail: pmatth...@debian.org
patr...@linux-dev.org
Comment:
Always if we think we are right,
we were maybe wrong.
*/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkqgKFQACgkQ2XA5inpabMfhvQCeLy0RScUaQ4HxMUAwWIebeHQY
nksAnR54p7JQfSwsBULyhtITNNEkXyUU
=+rYd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
