[ CC'ed #758234 as Stuart's questions are also related to that. ] Stuart Prescott <stu...@debian.org> writes: >> Gerrit Pape <p...@dbnbgs.smarden.org> writes: >>> Since discussion on this topic seems to have stopped, I suggest this >>> patch to remove the priority "extra" for Debian packages. >>> >>> All packages that currently are of priority "extra" shall be changed to >>> priority "optional" for the reasons outlined in message #35 to this >>> very report >> >> I find Priority: extra useful for at least transitional packages, >> detached debug symbols, and packages conflicting with packages of >> priority >= important (or maybe >= standard) that will continue to do >> so, say for example alternative init systems. >> >> Currently I therefore object this change, but don't mind limiting what >> the 'extra' priority should be used for further. > > For the purposes of this discussion, it would be very useful if you could > clarify if the above objection is with your ftp-master hat on or your Debian > user hat on. (This is not to say that your opinion as a Debian user is not > important, but I think the context of your remark is quite important -- an > ftp-master saying "we need priorities" is different to a user saying "I like > priorities".) > > To me, your comment sounds like one being made as a user, as it is not > commenting on the role of the priorities in the organisation of the archive > and, because priorities are somehow important in the organisation of the > archive, that is why they are controlled by ftp-master and not by the > maintainers. It would be very helpful to have an ftp-master's view as to why > the Priority field is important for that at all.
That's my view as a user. It's mostly useful to see which packages are safe to remove, or to search for them. One might achieve the same results with searching for multiple sections instead. Technically, I don't think we need Priority: extra. As far as I know, the main (only?) users of priorities are d-i and debootstrap which only care about required, important, standard, and ignore the optional/extra packages. Related to that: Given d-i/debootstrap are the main users, I think having d-i ignore the priority of library packages already[1] is an indication that allowing packages to depend on library packages with lower priority might not be wrong. [1] <https://bugs.debian.org/758234#15> > In a later message, you describe some of the busywork that ftp-master > control of priorities involves and say: > >> Finally I'm not sure if it is ftpmaster's task to tell maintainers of >> high priority packages what other packages they may depend on. We should >> by default just trust them. > > which makes me think that you see no reason why ftp-master is controlling > Priority either. With your ftp-master hat on, is there any reason not to > just rip all that overrides code out of dak and instead accept the values > from the maintainers? (That directly addresses the other part of this > discussion, too.) I think it's useful to be able to change what d-i installs without having to upload packages unrelated to d-i itself for this. How this is implemented doesn't matter too much (besides transition issues). If someone decides we really hate priorities, I think we could possibly replace them with meta-packages (required -> minimal-system, important -> base-system, standard -> standard-system, nothing for optional and extra). Ansgar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org