On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 08:51:02AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Santiago Vila <sanv...@unex.es> writes: > > An alternative would be to say that all software that doesn't warrant > standard or higher should be packaged with priority optional *unless* it > conflicts with something, in which case it should be priority extra. That > at least would be simple and straightforward and would be easier for new > maintainers to reason about.
I would agree with that, but it is not in line with what the FTP master are doing. > It's not what we're doing right now, though; > instead, "rarely used" software has some random mix of optional and extra > priorities, based on the whim of the maintainer, and there are certain > classes of packages that are almost always extra (debug symbols, for > example). This is all hard to explain. As far as I remember, this rule was introduced by the FTP masters (and not on debian-policy, but with input from debian-devel). See bug #491985 for some background. We made the conscious decision not to try to codify what the FTP masters were doing. So, I do not think we can move forward without input from the FTP masters. Cheers, -- Bill. <ballo...@debian.org> Imagine a large red swirl here. -- 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/20141117174745.GA22004@yellowpig
