Packages' priorities should be in line with Debian policy

[Evan Broder]

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.

[Tim Abbott (tabbott)]

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.
>

[Greg Price (gregprice)]

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