On Tue, 06 Dec 2016 15:54:46 +0100 Ansgar Burchardt <ans...@debian.org> wrote: > On Sat, 2016-12-03 at 06:33 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > > And to actually fix the issues, instead of merely dropping the > > mention and > > thus making the dependencies last forever because of inertia, I urge > > you to > > go all the way from "priority of rdepends MUST be raised" all the way > > to > > "priority of rdepends MUST NOT be raised, every package is to be > > evaluated > > only based on what it directly brings to the user (elevation possibly > > _moved_ to a metapackage/etc but never copied the other way)" (maybe > > just a > > SHOULD NOT for a transitional period). > > I think this should be a "SHOULD NOT": > > The main consumer of the priority information is the installer > (debootstrap) which has only a very limited dependency resolver. It > might be necessary to raise the priority of dependencies to make sure > it does the right thing (I don't think we need this currently, but we > should keep the option open in case it turns out we need it). > > Ansgar > >
Hi, I support this (with "SHOULD NOT"). Thanks, ~Niels
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
