Bug#759491: Defining pseudo-essential

2014-09-12 Thread Guillem Jover
[ Only found time to finish up the reply I started weeks ago now, so I might lost my train of thought from then. :/ ] Hi! On Wed, 2014-08-27 at 18:02:29 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Guillem Jover writes: > > On Wed, 2014-08-27 at 09:22:42 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > >> @@ -1321,6 +1323,76

Bug#759491: Defining pseudo-essential

2014-08-27 Thread Russ Allbery
Guillem Jover writes: > On Wed, 2014-08-27 at 09:22:42 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >> @@ -1321,6 +1323,76 @@ zope. >> mailing list and a consensus about doing that has been >> reached. >> >> + >> + >> + Pseudo-essential packages >> + >> + >> +

Bug#759491: Defining pseudo-essential

2014-08-27 Thread Guillem Jover
Hi! On Wed, 2014-08-27 at 09:22:42 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Ansgar Burchardt writes: > > That's related to being (pseudo-)essential and not to priority. Package > > of Priority: required do not have to be pseudo-essential, but packages > > of lower priority can be pseudo-essential: > @@ -132