Howdy all, (FTP masters: we are asking for your attention to this bug report, but is *not* urgent. We are aware the Squeeze release is active, and any work to do with that has higher importance than this bug report.)
This bug report appears to need further discussion. To summarise: Policy's current wording (in §2.5 and §5.6.6) strongly implies that an erroneous Priority value is a Policy-violating bug in the package with that priority. There is consensus that should not the case, especially now that ftpmaster maintains Priority values in an override file; so the Policy wording needs to be improved. There are open questions: Does the ftpmaster team find it at all useful to have bug reports against the packages with incorrect priorities? For incorrect priority of a package, is there an appropriate bug report target other than the package itself? Is the canonical location of the Priority value now the override file maintained by ftpmaster? If so, Policy's current description of the Priority field in packages is outdated and very misleading; what should Policy say about the Priority field in the packages themselves? (dependent on the answers to the above) What should Policy say about filing bugs against packages with erroneous Priority values? What should Policy say about the ftpmaster override file? -- \ “Prediction is very difficult, especially of the future.” | `\ —Niels Bohr | _o__) | Ben Finney <b...@benfinney.id.au>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
