What about this wording?: - Packages must not depend on packages with lower priority values (excluding - build-time dependencies). In order to ensure this, the priorities of one - or more packages may need to be adjusted. + Packages' priorities should depend solely on functionality they directly + bring to the user; their priority should not be modified merely because + another package makes use of them (this can be expressed via a + dependency). In particular, this means that C-like libraries almost never + will have a priority above optional. + + On the other hand, it is allowed to _move_ such elevation to a package + that depends on the actual implementation: for example, if we ever declare + postgresql-client to be important, it may be elevated despite being an + empty package that merely depends on postgresql-client-9.6.
Obviously, this also requires changing the "extra" priority; either by #759260 (complete removal) or at least: - This contains all packages that conflict with others 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 (such as packages containing only - detached debugging symbols). + This priority is deprecated, but may be used to denote packages + that are unlikely to be useful even for most users interested + in their general field. -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ A dumb species has no way to open a tuna can. ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ A smart species invents a can opener. ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ A master species delegates.
