Hi Charles,
first of all, thanks for trying to get this sorted out!
Charles Plessy (2014-11-17):
> [CCed all people who expressed themselves in #758234 (forgive me if I
> forgot some), and debian-boot and debian-cd (there is a question for
> you)]
I must admit I'm busy with work-related topics
[CCed all people who expressed themselves in #758234 (forgive me if I forgot
some),
and debian-boot and debian-cd (there is a question for you)]
Dear all,
here is a summary of the discussion in #758234 regarding package Priorities,
the way they are used, and what the Policy contains about them.
On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 04:31:37PM +, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On 15/11/14 09:35, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > If those are the real reasons, then let's drop the rule only for
> > *libraries*, but not for every other package.
>
> I think libraries are merely the most visible and obvious example of
On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 09:09:06AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> If I read #759260 correctly, Gerrit Pape objected
> to allowing depending on lower-priority packages and said that the current
> "file a bug and raise the priority" process is just fine. However, IMHO it
> clearly is, not because
Hi,
Charles Plessy:
> on my side I agree that self-contained priority levels are not needed anymore
> and are even becoming harmful. This said, there were objections to the
> removal
> of this rule in this thread and in #759260, and I do not remember if we had
> good answers to each of them. Ma
Le Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 01:24:32PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs a écrit :
>
>
> - 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
Hi,
Bill Allombert:
> What I do not understand is, how this affect debootstrap ?
>
Debootstrap (by default) fetches everything-in-important, and then adds any
un-satisfied dependencies which these packages need.
Installation variants instead get everything-in-mandatory,
plus e.g. apt and build-e
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 01:24:32PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> [ re-post, signed ]
>
> I'd like to formally propose the following Policy change to fix the
> "depend on packages with lower dependencies" non-problem.
>
> This does simplify current practice, but unfortunately not Policy itself,
[ re-post, signed ]
I'd like to formally propose the following Policy change to fix the
"depend on packages with lower dependencies" non-problem.
This does simplify current practice, but unfortunately not Policy itself,
as adhering to policy shouldn't allow you to break debootstrap. :-P
This cha
Package: debian-policy
Followup-For: Bug #758234
I'd like to suggest the following Policy change to fix the
"depend on packages with lower dependencies" non-problem.
This does simplify current practice, but unfortunately not Policy itself,
as adhering to policy shouldn't allow you to break deboot
10 matches
Mail list logo
