On Thu, Mar 18, 1999 at 11:45:07PM -0800, Guy Maor wrote: > This is a good idea, but rather than introduce a new priority, I > propose that we loosen the definitions of the higher priorities. > Currently we have > > Essential (a de-facto priority composed of those packages with the > Essential flag on) > Required > Important > Standard > Optional > Extra > > If our intent is that practically all systems install Standard and > higher, do we really need four tiers there? Let's broaden important > so it includes our current standard software and redefine standard as > Ian suggested the new priority be defined.
Thanks Guy, this is also what I was thinking. -- Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Debian GNU/Linux developer PGP: E8D68481E3A8BB77 8EE22996C9445FBE The Source Comes First! ------------------------------------------------------------------------- <BenC> cerb: we subscribed you to debian-fight as the moderator <BenC> cerb: list rules are, 1) no nice emails, 2) no apologies
pgpVr0NcjByQN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
