Your message dated Sun, 06 Aug 2017 03:04:19 +0000
with message-id <>
and subject line Bug#196367: fixed in debian-policy
has caused the Debian Bug report #196367,
regarding Clarify Policy on priority inversion in dependencies
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact

Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist

Every so often, somebody encounters the bit of the policy manual that

  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 adjusted.

Seeing the "must", they then go and file a bunch of serious bugs.
However, priorities are set by ftpmaster overrides, and, even if the
maintainer uploads a "fixed" version of the package, the priority will
still be wrong in the Packages file until an ftpmaster goes and changes
the override. Thus, filing bugs against individual packages for this is
basically a waste of time. Instead of wasting a number of people's time
and effort with lots of release-critical bugs, all the reporter needed
to do was ask for the priorities of (ideally) a batch of packages to be
changed. (I'm not sure in exactly what format ftpmaster would prefer
reports like this - perhaps somebody could clarify - but I do know that
hassling maintainers is a horribly ineffective way to get this job

I appreciate that in general policy isn't really the place for telling
people how to go about getting particular problems fixed. However, when
you try to tell somebody that actually the maintainers can't really do
anything useful about the dozens of RC bugs they've just filed the
response is invariably "but policy said this was release-critical". I'd
really like it to have some clarifying text that says something like
this: "Priorities are set by the archive maintainers and can be changed
en masse, so filing release-critical bugs against individual packages is
a poor way to report this class of problem".

There were various discussions about this last year on debian-devel
after a bout of mass-filing.


Colin Watson                                  []

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Source: debian-policy

We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
debian-policy, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive.

A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is

Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed.  If you
have further comments please address them to,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.

Debian distribution maintenance software
Sean Whitton <> (supplier of updated debian-policy 

(This message was generated automatically at their request; if you
believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive
administrators by mailing

Hash: SHA512

Format: 1.8
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2017 21:47:47 -0400
Source: debian-policy
Binary: debian-policy
Architecture: all source
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Debian Policy List <>
Changed-By: Sean Whitton <>
Closes: 196367 485776 589671 640263 660249 678607 758124 758234 759260 822430 
835520 839172 849851 849853 866192 867308
 debian-policy - Debian Policy Manual and related documents
 debian-policy ( unstable; urgency=medium
   [ Russ Allbery ]
   * Policy: Overhaul priorities, deprecate extra
     Wording: Russ Allbery <>
     Seconded: Niels Thykier <>
     Seconded: Andreas Henriksson <>
     Seconded: Ansgar Burchardt <>
     Closes: #758234, #759260, #660249, #196367
   * Policy: Clarify prohibition on depending on environment variables
     Wording: Russ Allbery <>
     Seconded: Simon McVittie <>
     Seconded: Niels Thykier <>
     Closes: #640263
   [ Sean Whitton ]
   * Policy: Disambiguate "original authors" in 12.5
     Wording: Jonathan Nieder <>
     Seconded: Russ Allbery <>
     Seconded: David Bremner <>
     Seconded: Jonas Smedegaard <>
     Closes: #678607
   * Policy: Document Testsuite: field
     Wording: Charles Plessy <>
     Seconded: Antonio Terceiro <>
     Seconded: Sean Whitton <>
     Seconded: David Bremner <>
     Closes: #758124
   * Policy: Require calling ldconfig by means of triggers
     Wording: Niels Thykier <>
     Seconded: Andreas Henriksson <>
     Seconded: Sean Whitton <>
     Seconded: David Bremner <>
     Closes: #822430
   * Policy: Make section 9 agnostic between Debian's init systems
     Wording: Andreas Henriksson <>
     Seconded: Andrey Rahmatullin <>
     Seconded: Martin Pitt <>
     Seconded: Holger Levsen <>
     Seconded: gregor herrmann <>
     Seconded: Sean Whitton <>
     Seconded: Russ Allbery <>
     Closes: #835520
   * Policy: Packages may not install both a desktop entry and a menu entry
     Wording: Sean Whitton <>
     Seconded: Philip Hands <>
     Seconded: Didier 'OdyX' Raboud <>
     Seconded: David Bremner <>
     Closes: #839172
   * Convert to an appendix to Policy itself.
     - Update link in "Authors and Maintainers" to point to this new
       appendix (Closes: #866192).
   * Incorporate Margarita Manterola's maintscript flowcharts as a new
     appendix (Closes: #485776).
     Many thanks to David Bremner for help importing the images to docbook.
     - Add a footnote to 6.6 linking to the new appendix.
   * Update first paragraph of Appendix A to note that the final three
     appendices (the policy changes process and the upgrading checklist)
     were not taken from the Packaging Manual.
   * Add a footnote linking to the REJECT-FAQ (Closes: #849853).
   * Note that the debian/rules clean target is useless for removing files
     not compatible with the DFSG (Closes: #849851).
   * Add 'javascript', 'rust' archive sections (Closes: #867308).
   * Drop remark that systems with only required packages installed are
     "probably unusable", and add a paragraph break. (Closes: #589671).
 886b7359787723992ed9598130848b9dcc00136a 1968 debian-policy_4.0.1.0.dsc
 58e543987c00be8f9e466e8f3d76d7f25e68c8b3 679388 debian-policy_4.0.1.0.tar.xz
 0df5e469d3e18d15e51f707f3ef2eab1b24963ab 2392884 debian-policy_4.0.1.0_all.deb
 6d744945db81f54ea3563e40feb09260bbdf578c 11716 
 638421b46c4148d8a6dc1b744a3e941dd118aed0d0bddc61dd0d3c338743a245 1968 
 b7650c4b12312eb381f94c1fa6167d52ddbb3ce72f5de52793e67e52f1869667 679388 
 2751246547981249ae59d411f8ac7112ff8d7907b8bdd04abf36ce001acdd42a 2392884 
 d3662c216409aa7b0652109f6e3de3363ace586596bce3f25a48940501545f09 11716 
 c5ec6415e3fcccf501bed73ad9227012 1968 doc optional debian-policy_4.0.1.0.dsc
 f2954fe0919bfd4300c1b7676f66c63a 679388 doc optional 
 7567e7dcef323fd8827b3497ecdfb5ae 2392884 doc optional 
 d02285be47b8e42020f0ce3870e58991 11716 doc optional 



--- End Message ---

Reply via email to