Hi.
On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 09:08:55AM +0200, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > The other way would be if the archive priority was changed between
> > different installs.
>
> This has happened in april 2016 (maybe related to bug 780721 ?)
>
> "d/control: Increase Priority of libcap2{,-bin} to important"
>
> https://salsa.debian.org/debian/libcap2/commit/a3f0fbccfa946b6895da1b3521849d04ccf8da0f
>
> and again four months ago
>
> "d/control: Drop Priority of libcap2"
>
> https://salsa.debian.org/debian/libcap2/commit/5386335db24bfff5cc85bda69dbcda6ab2d7d20d
>
> (The latter is not yet in the released package's control file.)
>
> So one maintainer already adapted to the new policy rules.
Ah, that's what is was. That change made into the stable, I've just checked.
> But
> https://salsa.debian.org/debian/iputils/raw/master/debian/control
> still has the hunchbacked gesture of recommending an actually necessary
> dependency:
No, maintainer is correct. Not every filesystem supported by Debian
implements extended attributes needed for capabilities. Off the top of
my head it's NFS and JFFS2. Upgrading this particular dependency leads
only to a dependency bloat, and Default Users™ (i.e. ones that are
installing Recommends by default) aren't affected anyway.
Reco
