Hi,
Santiago Vila:
> A good rule to follow if we keep current policy would be that
> libraries should always have the lowest priority possible
> (but >= optional) that makes the rule
>
> "packages should not depend on others with lower priority values"
>
> to be true.
That's obvious. What is no
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 01:30:55PM +, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On 29/10/14 12:41, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > If we are going to take that route, we might just make all libraries
> > optional as a general rule.
>
> That seems reasonable to me, with the possible exception of the few
> libraries tha
On 29/10/14 12:41, Santiago Vila wrote:
> If we are going to take that route, we might just make all libraries
> optional as a general rule.
That seems reasonable to me, with the possible exception of the few
libraries that could justify their own priority via the "wtf, why isn't
this installed?"
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 03:04:43AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> can't even be detected via automated means.
Why not?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.or
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 01:37:11PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> I agree with your analysis, although perhaps not the wording. Maybe
> something like:
>
> # The priority of a package should be based on the functionality
> # of the package itself, and not on whether high-priority packages
> # depe
5 matches
Mail list logo
