Hi,
Santiago Vila:
> Maybe because current policy allows one to take the following set of packages:
>
> + Packages of required priority.
> * Packages of important or higher priority.
> * Packages of standard or higher priority.
>
> and all those sets are self-consistent (i.e. they don't have
> d
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 07:30:57PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> That's obvious. What is not so obvious, to me, is why we would still
> want the current policy in the first place, given that everything(?)
> is resolved via dependencies these days.
Maybe because current policy allows one to take
2 matches
Mail list logo
