severity 389674 wishlist
thanks
Joerg Jaspert a écrit :
On 10790 March 1977, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
iptables has important priority but is not a necessary tool, so its
priority should be lowered to either standard or optional.
I disagree, *i* consider it important and do not see a reason to lower
its priority.
For the reason to lower the priority, I already explained that iptables
isn't a necessary tool. However when rereading policy I realized "The
important packages are just a bare minimum of commonly-expected and
necessary tools." is an ambiguous statement, and I guess I
misinterpreted it. What this sentence probably means is that an
important package should contain "commonly-expected *or* necessary
tools", not "commonly-expected *and* necessary tools". So I'm making
this a wishlist bug.
Especially not as the maintainer is not supporting your view.
I don't know where you get that.
iptables, in my opinion, fits the description of priority important very
well, so unless you come up with a good reason why it doesnt fit this
wont happen.
Sorry for the misinterpretation, I actually have no good reason. I
brought the question on #debian-devel to have other people share their
"Unix experience", but all I got was that important vs standard didn't
matter. So I'll ignore the issue anyway.
For the record, I got the other historical bit I was missing about why
ipchains was priority important:
<aj> chealer: (historically, it was important because ipchains and
ipfwadm were part of netbase, which was important because it provides
/etc/services and so forth)
Considering #386363, I would recommend not to attempt getting input from
the maintainer about this.
Considering #386363 you should be banned from control bot and the
maintainer at least get hit once too. Do not play the same game here
please.
Don't worry. That wouldn't happen even if your communication skills
dropped by a magnitude.
