On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 02:28:22PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Do you have any idea how long we can expect to wait until dpkg supports
> the field? I would suggest that we wait until dpkg has defined
> behaviour for the field, as it will make documenting it much easier. It
> will also allow us t
Control: block 872587 by 872589
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 02:28:22PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 18 2017, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > Thus, some Policy guidance would be nice. Is it legal to use "Important:
> > yes" at this moment?
>
> It wouldn't be up to policy whether it's legal. We
Hello Adam,
Thank you for filing this bug.
On Fri, Aug 18 2017, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On the other hand, dpkg does not know the field. It won't say a word upon
> removal, and dpkg-gencontrol silently removes it.
> [...]
> Thus, some Policy guidance would be nice. Is it legal to use "Important
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.0.1.0
Severity: wishlist
Hi!
A couple of packages with "Important: yes" has just hit unstable (mount,
fdisk) -- or rather, _would_ hit unstable had dpkg-gencontrol not silently
ignored this field.
The problem is, this field is currently undocumented and unofficia
4 matches
Mail list logo
