Hello everybody, I would also support the suppression of the priority “extra” – which never brought concrete benefits in my experience in the Debian Med team – but the situation as of today is that this suppression is opposed by a member of the FTP master team, and since this is the team that would have to to the work induced by the suppression, this is a major blocking point.
Ansgar, you have written that you find the priority “extra” useful in some situations, but for me it is not clear if the uses cases are for human readability, or if it is to rely on that priority in automated processes. Could you give us details ? There is probably something to learn from them. Regarding the clarification of how priorities are managed, this has been under consideration for more than 10 years in #196367, whith one of the proposed wordings being seconded. In my point of view, we should insert this clarification in the Policy in a non-normative way, that is, with a wording that escapes the procedural overhead of looking for seconds. Something like: “The Priority and Section of the binary packages distributed in the Debian archive are set through a centralised ‘override’ file where values may differ from the field value in the source packages. The ‘override’ system is managed by the FTP master team and is outside the scope of this document.” Lastly, about raising directly or transitively priorities to required or important, I think that it would be useful and constructive to ask that at least a notification is sent on debian-devel. However, given the toxic levels of naysaying on this list, it would be too paralysing to require for a formal consensus. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140825231224.GA13531@aqwa.igloo
