Hello Lev, On Tue 16 Oct 2018 at 12:56PM +0500, Lev Lamberov wrote:
> as suggested by Chris Lamb [suggestion], I'd like to request your input > on #776413. It is concerned with the priority of the ed package. There > are two conflicting requests. Some users request ed to have priority > "optional", other users request it to be "important". Please, take a > look at the discussion in the mentioned bug report (and also in the > related one, #416585). > > [suggestion] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=776413#42 > > Some time ago (see, #416585) the priority of the ed package has been > changed to "optional", but ed is still a part of POSIX standard. For me > personally the main issue here is the interpretation of "Unix-like" in > the Debian Policy: "Important programs, including those which one would > expect to find on any Unix-like system." Raising this on the debian-policy list is certainly a good idea because there are people on here who can offer useful input. When it comes to the Policy Team itself and the Policy Changes Process, ISTM there are two ways this could go: - as package maintainers, you could interpret the current text of Policy yourself and just decide what the priority of the package should be, possibly using input from messages in this thread (speaking only for myself, admittedly as someone who has not yet had to deal seriously with any serial consoles or embedded systems, I find Ian's arguments convincing) - if you want the Policy Team and Process to make this decision for you, you can set your bug as blocked by our bugs #452393 and/or #776557 and/or other relevant bugs, as resolving those would be the way in which the Team and Process would offer official input on your decision. HTH. -- Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
