On Wed, 17 Mar 1999, Ian Jackson wrote: > It's clear that Optional is far too large. Although we nominally say > that packages for which you need to have a special requirement before > you want to install them should go in Extra, this rule hasn't been > well enforced, and is in any case contentious. > [...]
Your proposal is *very* interesting. However, before introducing a new priority, could we please make the distribution consistent according to the current priorities? Some time ago, I proposed a policy amendment for the definition of Optional, I got two seconds, no objections, and two weeks of time passed. Is this already policy? May I retitle the bug to [AMENDMENT]? This would make a lot of packages to be moved from optional to extra. This way, IMHO, we would have a more clear picture of the issue. Thanks. -- "54b7e942d2f9214b721ab03bbb5e98a2" (a truly random sig)
