Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> writes: > debian-de...@liska.ath.cx (Оlе Ѕtrеісhеr) writes: >> Ansgar Burchardt <ans...@debian.org> writes: > >>> As I don't really care about Priority and Section for source packages, I >>> haven't thought further about this and dak currently uses misc:extra for >>> all of them. > >> Policy, 5.6.6: Priority > >> | This field represents how important it is that the user have the >> | package installed. See Priorities, Section 2.5. >> | >> | When it appears in the debian/control file, it gives the value for the >> | subfield of the same name in the Files field of the .changes file. It >> | also gives the default for the same field in the binary packages. > >> Which means: If this is set, i *must* be taken as default for the binary >> packages (everything else would be a policy violation and therefor an RC >> bug, right?). > > I'm pretty sure that default is applied before dak ever sees the binary > package priority. (In other words, it's expanded via the build process > before priorities are added to the *.changes file.)
So it is a debhelper bug? Still a "serious" one? (Violation of Policy)? > Also, dak is canonical for priorities, and values in binary packages > are only used on initial upload to set the initial override value. > From that point forward, changes have to be made via bugs filed with > ftp.debian.org. The package in question was initially uploaded. > It's possible that Policy could stand some work to make this clearer. .... or the process should be adjusted to follow the policy (at least this is what I would usually expect). Best Ole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/877g2bos0p....@baikal.ole.ath.cx
