package debian-policy user [email protected] usertags 196367 + discussion tags 196367 + patch thanks
Ben Finney <[email protected]> writes: > Policy's current wording (in §2.5 and §5.6.6) strongly implies that an > erroneous Priority value is a Policy-violating bug in the package with > that priority. There is consensus that should not the case, especially > now that ftpmaster maintains Priority values in an override file; so > the Policy wording needs to be improved. > > > There are open questions: Meanwhile, here is my take on a patch to address this bug. It makes assumptions about some of the answers to the open questions, so it is likely wrong or incomplete.
=== modified file 'policy.sgml'
--- policy.sgml 2010-08-18 20:55:34 +0000
+++ policy.sgml 2010-08-28 00:43:43 +0000
@@ -783,9 +783,16 @@
<p>
Packages must not depend on packages with lower priority
- values (excluding build-time dependencies). In order to
+ values (excluding build-time dependencies). In order to
ensure this, the priorities of one or more packages may need
- to be adjusted.
+ to be adjusted.<footnote>
+ The Priority field of an existing Debian package does not
+ determine the priority of that package;
+ see <ref id="f-Priority">. For this reason, the package
+ maintainer cannot fix this directly, and it is not
+ recommended to file bugs against packages whose source
+ declares an incorrect Priority field.
+ </footnote>
</p>
</sect>
@@ -2842,6 +2849,13 @@
It also gives the default for the same field in the binary
packages.
</p>
+
+ <p>
+ Once a package is in Debian, this field no longer
+ determines the priority of the package in the archive.
+ Instead, the Debian ftpmaster team maintains priority
+ values in the “override file”.
+ </p>
</sect1>
<sect1 id="f-Package">
-- \ “I do not believe in forgiveness as it is preached by the | `\ church. We do not need the forgiveness of God, but of each | _o__) other and of ourselves.” —Robert G. Ingersoll | Ben Finney <[email protected]>
pgpeT4WbZNV0T.pgp
Description: PGP signature
