Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> writes: > Ansgar Burchardt <ans...@debian.org> writes: >> Stuart Prescott <stu...@debian.org> writes: >>>> I find Priority: extra useful for at least transitional packages, >>>> detached debug symbols, and packages conflicting with packages of >>>> priority >= important (or maybe >= standard) that will continue to do >>>> so, say for example alternative init systems. > > For detached debug symbols and transitional packages, I think using the > section makes more sense here, since that provides more precise > information than the priority can provide. For example, transitional > packages are a different sort of "extra" than debug symbols; both can be > removed from the system without breaking important functionality, but the > transitional packages are more likely to be something one wants to remove > automatically.
Hmm, yes. Having two fields where one field (Section: debug) implies the value of the other (Priority: extra) is probably a sign that the less expressive one is redundant. > Could you say more about why you think conflicting packages having a > separate priority from optional is useful? When would people use that > priority information, and how? I think your later sentence describes my use case quite well: > I like priorities better than meta-packages for this purpose, and I think > the standard/important/required distinction really is useful, even outside > of d-i. I've used it as a user when figuring out which parallel > implementation of something to install. Of course this will not apply to all conflicting optional packages, but in some cases there will be a preferred choice. In this case alternatives could have a lower priority (i.e. extra). 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/87lhqb11rv....@deep-thought.43-1.org
