On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Josip Rodin wrote: > On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 01:52:58PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > [...] > > I propose this patch: > > --- policy.sgml~ 2003-07-21 12:17:53.000000000 +0200 > +++ policy.sgml 2003-07-21 12:31:13.000000000 +0200 > @@ -779,11 +779,24 @@ > </p> > > <p> > - Packages must not depend on packages with lower priority > + Packages should not depend on packages with lower priority > values (excluding build-time dependencies). In order to > ensure this, the priorities of one or more packages may need > to be adjusted. > </p> > + > + <p> > + Note that actual priorities of packages in the Debian archive > + are set with the so-called override files, which are maintained > + by the archive maintenance team. > + <footnote> > + In practice, this means that even if the package maintainer > + uploads a "fixed" version of the package, the priority will > + still be wrong in the Packages file until an ftpmaster goes > + and changes the override. Thus, mass-filing bug reports > + against individual packages for this is strongly discouraged. > + </footnote> > + </p> > </sect> > > </chapt>
I second the clarifying paragraph. I object to changing to "should". We must fix the wrong priorities once and forever, and keep them sane sane from release to release. If the *current* ftpmasters have not achieved this goal yet, I can't imagine how much they will care if we downgrade this to a simple "should". That will only ensure that we will never have sane priorities.
