Jonathan Nieder <jrnie...@gmail.com> writes: > Ansgar Burchardt wrote: >> Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> writes: >>> In some cases, it can change maintenance decisions. >> >> Does this differ much from packages being picked up by other commonly >> installed software? Say GNOME starting to depend on my small library >> which suddenly raises from ~100 to 50000+ reported installations? > > In the case of "Priority: required", yes. The pseudo-essential part > has to continue to function during an upgrade before dependencies are > configured and "postinst upgrade" runs.
That's related to being (pseudo-)essential and not to priority. Package of Priority: required do not have to be pseudo-essential, but packages of lower priority can be pseudo-essential: All init alternatives are pseudo-essential, but most are Priority: extra. (Totally unrelated I think init systems should not be essential...) Note that there is no automated way to determine what packages are pseudo-essential: an essential package (pre-)depending is neither a sufficient nor necessary condition. Not sufficient: Package a-essential can Depends: b, but b is not required for the essential parts of a-essential. Not necessary: Package a-essential can Depends: b for its essential functionality, but b-alternative can divert that part of b making b-alternative pseudo-essential (plus the packages b-alternative depends on for the parts a-essential needs from b-alternative). > In the case of "Priority: important" and "standard", the main changes > are (1) having to worry more about the package's installed size and > (2) splitting the package into more pieces or variants when parts > depend on packages some users don't want (e.g. X). (2) seems to be a common case for all packages, unrelated to their priority. Ansgar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/85vbpenxrt....@tsukuyomi.43-1.org
