Hi, general statement for everybody: Please use
Priority: optional for all your packages which are not *-dbg (Debug) packages. Everything else is some kind of wrong shyness / understatement because you might think your package is "not so important". As explained below the differences between optional and extra are not very large.[1] I have also read somewhere that not all QA tools we have in Debian are extended to priority extra packages - but we *really* want to have all those nifty tools running on our software. On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 11:53:33PM +0100, Sascha Steinbiss wrote: > On 05.11.2013 23:37, Charles Plessy wrote: > > Dear Sascha, > > Dear Charles, > > > the Priority and Section fields of a package are used once, when > > they are accepted for the first time in the Debian archive. > > Further changes have no effect; one has to request the FTP team to > > change the metadata of the archive directly by opening a bug on the > > pseudopackage “ftp.debian.org”. For this, using the 'reportbug' > > tool is recommended. > > I see. I remember that during the first upload the priorities were set > to extra, and only later changed to optional to comply with the DebMed > policy -- I guess that's where the disparities came from in the first > place. Do you think it is worth the while to file a change request? I vaguely remember that these things are changed at some point in time without filing such requests. However, it seems that the previous uploads did not showed some "healing" effect - so perhaps filing the change request might make sense. > > For the priority, there are not many practical difference between > > “optional” and “extra”, the main one being that all the “optional” > > packages must be co-installable. So if genometools does not > > conflict with another package nor depend on an “extra” package, it > > may be more straightforward to chose “optional”. > > Well, in the current state there are even optional-extra dependencies > within binary packages from the same source package, such as > python-genometools vs. libgenometools0, see > http://qa.debian.org/debcheck.php?dist=testing&package=genometools. Hmmm, the page is not really up to date (we have 1.5.1-2 in sid+jessie) but even the version showed there should have optional. BTW, I'd also check out the 'oldlibs' issue. > Whatever of both is chosen, I'd really like to straighten these out > into a consistent state. Please choose "optional" (except as for the -dbg package - right as it is in the current d/control file). > > In the case of the sections, libraries should be in the “libs” > > section so here it is definitely the source package that has to be > > corrected. By the way, the override disparities are a minor > > problem, so there is no need to immediately upload if it is only to > > propagate the changes. > > Great, thanks for the information! I will make the necessary > adjustments to the packages and upload with the next updated upstream > release. Charles is right here to use "Section: libs" for the library. If I remember right the usage of d-shlibs will check this - one nice reason to use this for library packages. (We have examples for d-shlibs usage in our Vcs, the most extensive example is probably staden-io-lib.) I also agree with Charles, that there is no really need to hurry up with an upload. I personally would go with a commit to Vcs of the relevant change to make sure it will not be forgotten. (Make sure you set target distribution to "UNRELEASED".) Kind regards Andreas. [1] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-priorities -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
