Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Given this, I wonder if the Policy shouldn't require -dbg package to be
> `extra', to align on the enforced value in order to reduce the
> differences beteween the binary package we ship and the packages
> obtained by our users when they build them from the source packages we
> ship.
Policy doesn't really set requirements around priority except for a few
specific cases, and I don't really expect that to change, since that's the
province of ftp-master. But we can certainly make your proposed change to
mention debugging symbols as an example of a package with extra priority.
I don't consider this change normative since:
> --- a/policy.sgml
> +++ b/policy.sgml
> @@ -751,9 +751,10 @@
> <item>
> This contains all packages that conflict with others
> with required, important, standard or optional
> - priorities, or are only likely to be useful if you
> + priorities, that are only likely to be useful if you
> already know what they are or have specialized
> - requirements.
> + requirements, or that only contain symbols for the GNU
> + debugger.
> </item>
> </taglist>
> </p>
packages containing only debugging symbols are certainly packages "that
are only likely to be useful if you already know what they are or have
specialized requirements."
So that means it's easy to just make this change. :)
Here's what I'm committing:
--- a/policy.sgml
+++ b/policy.sgml
@@ -753,7 +753,8 @@
with required, important, standard or optional
priorities, or are only likely to be useful if you
already know what they are or have specialized
- requirements.
+ requirements (such as packages containing only detached
+ debugging symbols).
</item>
</taglist>
</p>
but further wording tweaking is certainly welcome if people feel strongly
about a way of phrasing this.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
