On Thu, May 07, 2026 at 02:27:39AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > On Thu, 2026-05-07 at 09:01:57 +0900, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Well, that's really leading to something helpful and clear isn't it :( > I'm not sure I understand this comment. > Is this about the description in the Debian Policy? If so I guess it > would be nice to clarify the docs. > If this is about the changed role itself for the Priority field, then > the rationale was that because shared libraries are non-user facing > implementation details for the tools linking against them, keeping > their Priority in sync with the tools that depend on them didn't make > much sense and was not really maintainable (and prone to be out-of-sync > and incorrect). It didn't work that well either when the linking was > conditional per arch for example. And the archive overrides have been > this way for a long time, and I don't recall hearing any complaint > about this. It means that the priority field is basically noise, it does carry a little bit of meaning but not a meaning that you'd infer from the name and TBH something that could just be in the override file without any involvement from the packages.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
