On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 01:37:07AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: > 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.
Before anything, we should ask the ftp masyer whether they consider the policy group or themselves responsible for setting the priority. Cheers, -- Bill. <ballo...@debian.org> Imagine a large red swirl here.
