[CCed all people who expressed themselves in #758234 (forgive me if I forgot
some),
and debian-boot and debian-cd (there is a question for you)]
Dear all,
here is a summary of the discussion in #758234 regarding package Priorities,
the way they are used, and what the Policy contains about them.
Hi Charles,
first of all, thanks for trying to get this sorted out!
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org (2014-11-17):
[CCed all people who expressed themselves in #758234 (forgive me if I
forgot some), and debian-boot and debian-cd (there is a question for
you)]
I must admit I'm busy with
On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 04:31:37PM +, Simon McVittie wrote:
On 15/11/14 09:35, Santiago Vila wrote:
If those are the real reasons, then let's drop the rule only for
*libraries*, but not for every other package.
I think libraries are merely the most visible and obvious example of
Hi,
Charles Plessy:
on my side I agree that self-contained priority levels are not needed anymore
and are even becoming harmful. This said, there were objections to the
removal
of this rule in this thread and in #759260, and I do not remember if we had
good answers to each of them.
On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 09:09:06AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
If I read #759260 correctly, Gerrit Pape p...@dbnbgs.smarden.org objected
to allowing depending on lower-priority packages and said that the current
file a bug and raise the priority process is just fine. However, IMHO it
Le Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 01:24:32PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs a écrit :
p
- Packages must not depend on packages with lower priority
- values (excluding build-time dependencies). In order to
- ensure this, the priorities of one or more packages may need
- to be
Package: debian-policy
Followup-For: Bug #758234
I'd like to suggest the following Policy change to fix the
depend on packages with lower dependencies non-problem.
This does simplify current practice, but unfortunately not Policy itself,
as adhering to policy shouldn't allow you to break
[ re-post, signed ]
I'd like to formally propose the following Policy change to fix the
depend on packages with lower dependencies non-problem.
This does simplify current practice, but unfortunately not Policy itself,
as adhering to policy shouldn't allow you to break debootstrap. :-P
This
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 01:24:32PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
[ re-post, signed ]
I'd like to formally propose the following Policy change to fix the
depend on packages with lower dependencies non-problem.
This does simplify current practice, but unfortunately not Policy itself,
as
Hi,
Bill Allombert:
What I do not understand is, how this affect debootstrap ?
Debootstrap (by default) fetches everything-in-important, and then adds any
un-satisfied dependencies which these packages need.
Installation variants instead get everything-in-mandatory,
plus e.g. apt and
10 matches
Mail list logo
