2013/12/16 Felipe Sateler
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 5:55 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig
> wrote:
> > afaik, we have to file a bug-report with ftp.d.o to manually switch
> > the priority.
> >
> > i'd volunteer to do that for all packages involved (or only those,
> > where the DMs consent to switch the p
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 5:55 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> afaik, we have to file a bug-report with ftp.d.o to manually switch
> the priority.
>
> i'd volunteer to do that for all packages involved (or only those,
> where the DMs consent to switch the priority).
> that's why i wanted to start t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 2013-12-16 00:01, Jaromír Mikeš wrote:
> 2013/12/11 IOhannes m zmölnig
>
>>
>> i thus propose to do a cleanup of the package priorities and move
>> as many packages to "optional" as possible.
>>
>>
> I have switched these packages to "priorit
2013/12/11 IOhannes m zmölnig
>
> i thus propose to do a cleanup of the package priorities and move as
> many packages to "optional" as possible.
>
>
I have switched these packages to "priority optional" and upload some time
ago but now when I am checking they are still "extra":
clthreads
clxclie
i noticed that many packages maintained in the multimedia team have
priority "extra".
doing a quick grep over all our packages that have 'extra' as priority
and which are not 'dbg' packages (which probably *should* have priority
'extra'), gives me about 130 different binary packages, coming from
a
