On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 15:31:52 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Could someone who has the time to put together a script for this check to
see whether this is actually true? (Namely, that the only thing in
required are essential packages and their dependencies.)
As far as I can tell the
Julien Cristau jcris...@debian.org writes:
As far as I can tell the following packages are Priority: required but
not Essential: yes (in sid/amd64/main), or (pre-)depended on by an
Essential package (possibly recursively):
- debconf-i18n, liblocale-gettext-perl, libtext-charwidth-perl,
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes:
diff --git i/policy.sgml w/policy.sgml
index 52dbb26a..544308f8 100644
--- i/policy.sgml
+++ w/policy.sgml
@@ -757,16 +757,11 @@
taglist
tagttrequired/tt/tag
item
- Packages which are necessary for the
Julien Cristau wrote:
- debconf-i18n, liblocale-gettext-perl, libtext-charwidth-perl,
libtext-iconv-perl, libtext-wrapi18n-perl: since debconf 1.5.39 -i18n
is only a Recommends. Could probably be downgraded to important?
I think so. [1] has some context.
- mawk: one of the
Le Sun, Jul 08, 2012 at 07:52:05PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder a écrit :
In practice, my impression is that required usually just means
pseudo-essential (that is, essential packages and their transitive
dependencies). Is that impression correct? Would it be worth
documenting?
A part of me
Charles Plessy wrote:
Given that the Priority field in the debian source control file is used only
once, when the package is first uploaded to the Debian archive, deprecating
either the required or important priority would not render packages buggy just
for that fact.
Are you referring to
Le Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 01:20:19PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder a écrit :
Charles Plessy wrote:
Given that the Priority field in the debian source control file is used only
once, when the package is first uploaded to the Debian archive, deprecating
either the required or important priority
Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 01:20:19PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder a écrit :
Charles Plessy wrote:
deprecating
either the required or important priority would not render packages buggy
just
for that fact.
Are
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes:
It still sounds like work, so let's abandon that part of the proposal.
Maybe we can prepare for it with the following, though?
@@ -757,16 +757,11 @@
taglist
tagttrequired/tt/tag
item
- Packages which are
Hi Robert,
In 2007, Robert Millan wrote:
In the definition of priorities, required and important seem to collide
with each other. In particular, the part of required that reads:
Packages which are necessary for the proper functioning of the system
with the part of important that reads:
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.7.2.2
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
In the definition of priorities, required and important seem to collide
with each other. In particular, the part of required that reads:
Packages which are necessary for the proper functioning of the system
with the part
On Thu, Nov 22, 2007 at 07:41:10PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Thu, Nov 22, 2007 at 04:00:28PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
Unlike required, important may include packages following other
conditions not related to this one (and in fact, most of them aren't), so
my proposal is to clarify it
12 matches
Mail list logo
