-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
reassign 731834 ftp.debian.org
thanks.
On 2013-12-10 13:46, Guus Sliepen wrote:
> severity 731834 serious reassign 731834 ftp-master thanks
>
> Justification: section 2.5 "Packages must not depend on packages
> with lower priority values (excluding build-time dependencies). In
> order to ensure this, the priorities of one or more packages may
> need to be adjusted."
>
> Either libdc1394-22 should be assigned priority optional, or its
> reverse dependencies should be priority extra.
>
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 11:33:52AM +0100, IOhannes m zmoelnig
> wrote:
>
>> Package: libdc1394-22 Version: 2.2.1-2 Severity: minor
>>
>> Dear Maintainer, I noticed that this package has a priority
>> "extra".
>>
>> according to debian policy, i don't see a reason to not have
>> priority "optional", since the package does not have any
>> "specialized requirements" such as mentioned in §2.5 of the
>> Debian policy.
>>
>> the problem i'm experiencing is, that some packages of priority
>> "optional" depend on this package, which is a direct violation of
>> §2.5 ("Packages must not depend on packages with lower priority
>> values"). so either these packages or your package ought to have
>> fixed priorities, and i think it that this package would be the
>> better place :-)
>>
>> quoting from #debian-mentors:
>>
>> 10:27 < zmoelnig> i'm wondering about the "priorities" field:
>> which priority should i use as default for "most" packages?
>> "extra" or "optional"? [...] 10:30 < wRAR> zmoelnig: optional
>> [...] 10:31 < wRAR> there is #660249 10:31 < wRAR> the only
>> example in the text (debug symbols) hints (at least for me) that
>> this is not really about specialized software, but about
>> non-software packages. 10:32 < wRAR> other widely used example is
>> transitional packages [...] 10:34 < wRAR> at this point someone
>> usually remembers that distinctions between optional and extra do
>> not have a real meaning and that priorities should be abolished.
>>
>>
>> -- System Information: Debian Release: jessie/sid APT prefers
>> unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'stable'), (500,
>> 'oldstable'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: i386 (i686)
>>
>> Kernel: Linux 3.11-2-686-pae (SMP w/4 CPU cores) Locale:
>> LANG=de_AT.utf8, LC_CTYPE=de_AT.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell:
>> /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
>>
>> Versions of packages libdc1394-22 depends on: ii libc6
>> 2.17-96 ii libraw1394-11 2.1.0-1 ii libusb-1.0-0
>> 2:1.0.17-1+b1 ii multiarch-support 2.17-96
>>
>> libdc1394-22 recommends no packages.
>>
>> libdc1394-22 suggests no packages.
>>
>> -- no debconf information
>
> E
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/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=PoGd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
