+1 There is some fallout for missing Priority fields for debian-i18n, see:
https://salsa.debian.org/l10n-team/dl10n/-/merge_requests/11 Both the 4.7.3 text and the proposed wording below (which I also find an improvement) suggests the code behind i18n.d.o should be improved. The dl10n code suggests that historically that field has contained some non-standard values, I'm not sure if that refers to packages in Debian or outside of Debian. Regardless it seems good to mostly get rid of this header unless for the few packages where it is useful. /Simon Aurelien Jarno <[email protected]> writes: > Hi Russ, > > On 2026-01-01 11:41, Russ Allbery wrote: >> Aurelien Jarno <[email protected]> writes: >> >> > I don't know what is the maximum allowed length for the upgrading >> > checklist. Waht about that: >> >> > It is no longer recommended to specify the Priority field in source >> > package control files. If the field is omitted, dpkg defaults to >> > "optional" for the source package priority, and binary packages >> > inherit the priority from the source package. >> >> How about: >> >> Specifying the ``Priority`` field in source package control fields is >> no longer recommended unless the priority needs to be changed from the >> default. If the field is omitted, the default source package priority >> is ``optional``, and binary packages inherit the priority from the >> source package. >> >> It's not really relevant to the user that dpkg is the component that sets >> the default, only what the semantics are. I think this wording may also >> make it clearer that you do still need to think about whether you should >> provide Priority because the default is wrong. > > Thanks for proposing this, I find it quite good. > > Regards, > Aurelien >
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
