On Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 09:14:33PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > Thank you, the wording in the current policy seems to imply that > providing alternate frontends is an option only open to higher-priority > packages, whereas this is much clearer. Seconded.
Thanks for your support. I would like to make sure that people understand
that this policy does nothing to counter Policy 2.2, though:
Packages must not depend on packages with lower priority values
(excluding build-time dependencies). In order to ensure this, the
priorities of one or more packages must be adjusted.
In other words, when either of the first two options are exercised:
* the part of a package with X-specific components must have a priority no
higher than the packages on which it depends (including any X packages);
* an X-dependent alternative version of a package must have a priority no
higher than the packages on which it depends (including any X packages).
I feel that this logically follows from the proposal and from existing
policy, but I wanted to be absolutely clear about it.
--
G. Branden Robinson | I suspect Linus wrote that in a
Debian GNU/Linux | complicated way only to be able to have
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | that comment in there.
http://www.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Lars Wirzenius
pgpjhHl1GFJuU.pgp
Description: PGP signature
