[Pkg-ltsp-devel] ltsp override disparity

[Vagrant Cascadian]

On Wed, Dec 27, 2006 at 03:32:11PM -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant at freegeek.org> writes:
> > On Sat, Dec 23, 2006 at 06:02:02PM +0000, Debian Installer wrote:
> >> There are disparities between your recently accepted upload and the
> >> override file for the following file(s):
...snip...
> >> [NB: this is an automatically generated mail; if you replied to one
> >> like it before and have not received a response yet, please ignore
> >> this mail.  Your reply needs to be processed by a human and will be in
> >> due course, but until then the installer will send these automated
> >> mails; sorry.]
> >
> > so, i sent an email about this on september 29th ... is nearly three
> > months too long to blindly trust that the overrides will be updated, or
> > should we send another email?
> >
> > is this the kind of thing the ftp-masters wait till shortly before etch
> > to resolve?
> 
> But from my POV the override is right. We should follow it.

several problems with priorities were noted at:

http://qa.debian.org/debcheck.php?dist=unstable&package=ltsp

debootstrap is priority extra, which required updating the priority for
ltsp-server. which then required an update for ltsp-server-standalone,
which depends on ltsp-server. sparc-utils is alsa priority extra, so the
priority for ltsp-client was updated.

for all the packages, i feel "extra" is more appropriate anyways, based
on my interpretation of debian policy:

  `optional'
        (In a sense everything that isn't required is optional, but
        that's not what is meant here.) This is all the software that you
        might reasonably want to install if you didn't know what it was
        and don't have specialized requirements.  This is a much larger
        system and includes the X Window System, a full TeX distribution,
        and many applications.  Note that optional packages should not
        conflict with each other.

   `extra'
        This contains all packages that conflict with others with
        required, important, standard or optional priorities, or are only
        likely to be useful if you already know what they are or have
        specialized requirements.

i don't think ltsp-server or ltsp-client should be installed on a system
unless the person actually knows what they are, and i would say an ltsp
environment is "specialized requirements". or am i interpreting that too
broadly?

should i (we) resend a request to update the overrides?

live well,
  vagrant

p.s. otavio, please do NOT CC me, i am subscribed to the list, as
described in http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct :

  * When replying to messages on the mailing list, do not send a carbon
copy (CC) to the original poster unless they explicitly request to be
copied.