On 2019-05-30, Thomas Schmitt <scdbac...@gmx.net> wrote: > > So the explanation in > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=780721#10 > > iputils-ping, as priority "important", cannot declare a dependency on > libcap2-bin, which is priority "optional". > > is wrong and in direct contradiction to The Policy.
I think it would be more accurate to call the explanation *caduc* (or *caduque*) perhaps. > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=780721#20 > quotes exactly the above policy paragraph as > > 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. > > which i cannot see there any more. > The change probably happened in august 2017: > > > https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/upgrading-checklist.html#version-4-0-1 > 2.5 > [...] Packages may now depend on packages with a lower priority. [...] So it seems the reason invoked above is no longer valid due to a change in policy. > Last message in https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=780721 > is of february 2016. > > > So this bug could need an update and iputils-ping could now depend on > libcap2-bin. > > As we see in > https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/i/iputils/control-320180629-2 > it is not done yet: > > Package: iputils-ping > ... > Recommends: libcap2-bin > > > Have a nice day :) Ditto. > Thomas > > -- “Decisions are never really made – at best they manage to emerge, from a chaos of peeves, whims, hallucinations and all around assholery.” – Thomas Pynchon
