Packages' priorities should be in line with Debian policy

It is important to be aware when setting package priorities that if
package A depends on package B, package A's priority must be higher than
package B's.

It may also be relevant to be aware that increasing the priority of a
package from optional to extra is harder than setting it to optional in
the first place.

  -Tim Abbott

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008, Evan Broder wrote:

> Public bug reported:
>
> We should update the control files in our packages to be more in line
> with Debian policy.
>
> Currently many of our packages have the priority set to important, which
> is clearly not correct.
>
> Debian policy defines pretty well what the various priorities mean. Most
> of our packages should be optional, but a few of them should probably be
> extra.
>
> ** Affects: invirt
> Importance: Undecided
> Status: New
>
> --
> Packages' priorities should be in line with Debian policy
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/307727
> You received this bug notification because you are a member of Invirt
> Developers, which is the registrant for Invirt Project.
>
> Status in Invirt Project: New
>
> Bug description:
> We should update the control files in our packages to be more in line with Debian policy.
>
> Currently many of our packages have the priority set to important, which is clearly not correct.
>
> Debian policy defines pretty well what the various priorities mean. Most of our packages should be optional, but a few of them should probably be extra.
>

On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 08:29:24PM -0500, Tim Abbott wrote:
> It may also be relevant to be aware that increasing the priority of a
> package from optional to extra is harder than setting it to optional in
> the first place.

Increasing from extra to optional, I think you mean. (I had to look
up which was higher than which to work out where your typo was.)

Greg