Package: debian-policy Version: 3.7.2.2 Severity: wishlist Tags: patch In the definition of priorities, "required" and "important" seem to collide with each other. In particular, the part of "required" that reads:
"Packages which are necessary for the proper functioning of the system" with the part of "important" that reads: "Other packages without which the system will not run well" Not being a native English speaker, I'm not completely sure if a system can "function properly" and at the same time "not run well", but nevertheless the barrier seems so thin that I don't think it's reasonable that we require that the maintainers sort it out. Unlike "required", "important" may include packages following other conditions not related to this one (and in fact, most of them aren't), so my proposal is to clarify it in favour of "required". See attachment. -- System Information: Debian Release: lenny/sid APT prefers stable APT policy: (500, 'stable') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Kernel: Linux 2.6.18-5-amd64 Locale: LANG=ca_AD.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=ca_AD.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) -- no debconf information
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
