Hi, Ansgar Burchardt <ans...@debian.org> (2017-06-21): > I discussed this a bit on IRC with the other ftp-masters and we came > to this summary: > > 0) We would like to drop the requirement for packages to not depend on > packages of lower priority: it is better to declare only what we > actually want included in the installation (that is at priority >= > standard) rather than also the dependency closure. > > 1) We agree that the 'extra' priority can be dropped.
Looks good to me.
> 2) We wonder if the 'standard' priority can also be dropped: as far as
> we know, it is used only by the "standard" task and it might make
> sense to treat it the same as other tasks.
> (Depending on what works better for the installer team.)
>
> I've Cc'ed -boot@ as this policy change affects them (I don't think
> they have to read all of the way too long bug history though).
Comparing a Section field in the archive and a Depends list, I can
imagine we would have to arch-{qualify,filter} quite a number of
packages, which might be less convenient than just relying on the
archive contents.
On the other hand, I think it would be better to be able to track the
packages getting installed over time, instead of hoping for the best
when this or that package gets a (sometimes uncoordinated) priority
bump in the archive.
Initial impression is still that such a change might be welcome at
some point, but it needs to be carefully considered on the installer
side. This might also affect downstreams.
That being said, I'm very low on bandwidth right now, with 9.0.*
fixing and/or debugging, plus 9.1 preparations.
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
