Policy 2.5 says that packages must not depend on packages with lower priority values. From what I tried to research, that rule is meant to allow CD builders to build "Debian foo standard" CDs containing required, important and standard packages, guaranteed that all dependencies are satisfied just from choosing from the Priority.
This must be residue from the times when CD building tools didn't follow dependency chains. Today, it is trivial to build dependency-complete "Debian standard" CDs by including required, important and standard packages and following down the dependency chain. apt-get is a tool that can solve this, and at least the old CD building tools used apt-get to resolve the dependencies. This has been the case at least since slink when I joined the Debian user community. This being said, I'd like to point out a problem that this policy requirement poses. Let A and B both be packages that provide virtual package C. A is the default C in Debian, and is therefore Priority: important. A depends on E and F, which must be Priority: important as well, as required by current Policy. Now let's look at a system where the local administrator has decided to use B instead of A. Since E and F are Priority: important, dselect happily proceeds to install E and F on the system, even if they are not needed since the system in question uses B instead of A. To put it short: The last paragraph of Policy 2.5 is cruft that is no longer needed any more. It should be removed from Policy since we have had CD builder packages available that can follow dependency chains. I don't see other reasons behind the requirement, but am of course open to arguments. Did I overlook something? Greetings Marc -- -------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! ----- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Karlsruhe, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | Fon: *49 721 966 32 15 Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fax: *49 721 966 31 29
