Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.bugs.dist > #1261915 > unrolled thread

Bug#1110017: debian-policy: Priority should no longer be `recommended`

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.bugs.dist

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Bug#1110017: debian-policy: Priority should no longer be `recommended` Nilesh Patra <nilesh@debian.org> - 2025-09-17 19:40 +0200
    Bug#1110017: debian-policy: Priority should no longer be `recommended` Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2025-10-02 13:50 +0200
    Bug#1110017: debian-policy: Priority should no longer be `recommended` Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2025-10-02 15:00 +0200
    Bug#1110017: debian-policy: Priority should no longer be `recommended` Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org> - 2025-10-02 16:50 +0200
      Bug#1110017: debian-policy: Priority should no longer be `recommended` Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2025-10-02 20:30 +0200
        Bug#1110017: debian-policy: Priority should no longer be `recommended` Nilesh Patra <nilesh@riseup.net> - 2025-10-02 23:10 +0200
          Bug#1110017: debian-policy: Priority should no longer be `recommended` Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org> - 2025-10-03 05:20 +0200
            Bug#1110017: debian-policy: Priority should no longer be `recommended` Nilesh Patra <nilesh@riseup.net> - 2025-10-03 16:50 +0200
              Bug#1110017: debian-policy: Priority should no longer be `recommended` Nilesh Patra <nilesh@riseup.net> - 2025-10-03 16:50 +0200
                Bug#1110017: debian-policy: Priority should no longer be `recommended` Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org> - 2025-10-04 15:20 +0200
                Bug#1110017: debian-policy: Priority should no longer be `recommended` Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2025-10-06 14:50 +0200
        Bug#1110017: debian-policy: Priority should no longer be `recommended` Nilesh Patra <nilesh@riseup.net> - 2025-10-02 23:10 +0200
          Bug#1110017: debian-policy: Priority should no longer be `recommended` Nilesh Patra <nilesh@riseup.net> - 2025-10-02 23:20 +0200

#1261915 — Bug#1110017: debian-policy: Priority should no longer be `recommended`

Control: tags -1 patch

> ACK.  Patches welcome.

The patch is pasted below.

diff --git a/policy/ch-archive.rst b/policy/ch-archive.rst
index 302dc8d..3bf5abf 100644
--- a/policy/ch-archive.rst
+++ b/policy/ch-archive.rst
@@ -376,11 +376,14 @@ Priorities
 ----------
 
 Each package must have a *priority* value, which is set in the metadata
-for the Debian archive and is also included in the package's control
-files (see :ref:`s-f-Priority`). This information is used
+for the Debian archive and is also included in the package's binary
+control files (see :ref:`s-f-Priority`). This information is used
 to control which packages are included in standard or minimal Debian
 installations.
 
+If the *Priority* field is not specified in the source control file, dpkg
+sets it to ``optional`` by default starting version 1.22.13.
+
 Most Debian packages will have a priority of ``optional``. Priority
 levels other than ``optional`` are only used for packages that should be
 included by default in a standard installation of Debian.
diff --git a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst
index 9f06cc9..e4390b4 100644
--- a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst
+++ b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst
@@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ The fields in the source package stanza (the first one) are:
 
 -  :ref:`Section <s-f-Section>` (recommended)
 
--  :ref:`Priority <s-f-Priority>` (recommended)
+-  :ref:`Priority <s-f-Priority>`
 
 -  :ref:`Build-Depends et al <s-sourcebinarydeps>`
 
@@ -138,7 +138,7 @@ The fields in the binary package stanzas are:
 
 -  :ref:`Section <s-f-Section>` (recommended)
 
--  :ref:`Priority <s-f-Priority>` (recommended)
+-  :ref:`Priority <s-f-Priority>`
 
 -  :ref:`Essential <s-f-Essential>`
 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1264378

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hello,

On Wed 17 Sep 2025 at 11:06pm +0530, Nilesh Patra wrote:

> diff --git a/policy/ch-archive.rst b/policy/ch-archive.rst
> index 302dc8d..3bf5abf 100644
> --- a/policy/ch-archive.rst
> +++ b/policy/ch-archive.rst
> @@ -376,11 +376,14 @@ Priorities
>  ----------
>
>  Each package must have a *priority* value, which is set in the metadata
> -for the Debian archive and is also included in the package's control
> -files (see :ref:`s-f-Priority`). This information is used
> +for the Debian archive and is also included in the package's binary
> +control files (see :ref:`s-f-Priority`). This information is used
>  to control which packages are included in standard or minimal Debian
>  installations.
>
> +If the *Priority* field is not specified in the source control file, dpkg
> +sets it to ``optional`` by default starting version 1.22.13.
> +
>  Most Debian packages will have a priority of ``optional``. Priority
>  levels other than ``optional`` are only used for packages that should be
>  included by default in a standard installation of Debian.
> diff --git a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst
> index 9f06cc9..e4390b4 100644
> --- a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst
> +++ b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst
> @@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ The fields in the source package stanza (the first one) are:
>
>  -  :ref:`Section <s-f-Section>` (recommended)
>
> --  :ref:`Priority <s-f-Priority>` (recommended)
> +-  :ref:`Priority <s-f-Priority>`
>
>  -  :ref:`Build-Depends et al <s-sourcebinarydeps>`
>
> @@ -138,7 +138,7 @@ The fields in the binary package stanzas are:
>
>  -  :ref:`Section <s-f-Section>` (recommended)
>
> --  :ref:`Priority <s-f-Priority>` (recommended)
> +-  :ref:`Priority <s-f-Priority>`
>
>  -  :ref:`Essential <s-f-Essential>`

Thanks.  Seconded.

-- 
Sean Whitton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1264385

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 11:06:29PM +0530, Nilesh Patra wrote:
> --- a/policy/ch-archive.rst
> +++ b/policy/ch-archive.rst
> @@ -376,11 +376,14 @@ Priorities
>  ----------
>  
>  Each package must have a *priority* value, which is set in the metadata
> -for the Debian archive and is also included in the package's control
> -files (see :ref:`s-f-Priority`). This information is used
> +for the Debian archive and is also included in the package's binary
> +control files (see :ref:`s-f-Priority`). This information is used
>  to control which packages are included in standard or minimal Debian
>  installations.
>  
> +If the *Priority* field is not specified in the source control file, dpkg
> +sets it to ``optional`` by default starting version 1.22.13.
> +
>  Most Debian packages will have a priority of ``optional``. Priority
>  levels other than ``optional`` are only used for packages that should be
>  included by default in a standard installation of Debian.
> diff --git a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst
> index 9f06cc9..e4390b4 100644
> --- a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst
> +++ b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst
> @@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ The fields in the source package stanza (the first one) are:
>  
>  -  :ref:`Section <s-f-Section>` (recommended)
>  
> --  :ref:`Priority <s-f-Priority>` (recommended)
> +-  :ref:`Priority <s-f-Priority>`
>  
>  -  :ref:`Build-Depends et al <s-sourcebinarydeps>`
>  
> @@ -138,7 +138,7 @@ The fields in the binary package stanzas are:
>  
>  -  :ref:`Section <s-f-Section>` (recommended)
>  
> --  :ref:`Priority <s-f-Priority>` (recommended)
> +-  :ref:`Priority <s-f-Priority>`
>  
>  -  :ref:`Essential <s-f-Essential>`

seconded as well, thanks!


-- 
cheers,
	Holger

 ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
 ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
 ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀  OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C
 ⠈⠳⣄

Klimakatastrophe bedeutet kompletter sozialer Kollaps.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1264411

Hi!

On Wed, 2025-09-17 at 23:06:29 +0530, Nilesh Patra wrote:
> diff --git a/policy/ch-archive.rst b/policy/ch-archive.rst
> index 302dc8d..3bf5abf 100644
> --- a/policy/ch-archive.rst
> +++ b/policy/ch-archive.rst
> @@ -376,11 +376,14 @@ Priorities
>  ----------
>  
>  Each package must have a *priority* value, which is set in the metadata
> -for the Debian archive and is also included in the package's control
> -files (see :ref:`s-f-Priority`). This information is used
> +for the Debian archive and is also included in the package's binary
> +control files (see :ref:`s-f-Priority`). This information is used
>  to control which packages are included in standard or minimal Debian
>  installations.
>  
> +If the *Priority* field is not specified in the source control file, dpkg
> +sets it to ``optional`` by default starting version 1.22.13.

After the control file nomenclature unification, "source control file"
should always refer to a «.dsc», in this case I think you mean
"source package template control file".

Also, not sure whether to make it explicit as in "not specified in any
of the stanzas" but perhaps that's unnecessary.

Thanks,
Guillem

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1264434

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hello,

On Thu 02 Oct 2025 at 04:38pm +02, Guillem Jover wrote:

> Hi!
>
> On Wed, 2025-09-17 at 23:06:29 +0530, Nilesh Patra wrote:
>> diff --git a/policy/ch-archive.rst b/policy/ch-archive.rst
>> index 302dc8d..3bf5abf 100644
>> --- a/policy/ch-archive.rst
>> +++ b/policy/ch-archive.rst
>> @@ -376,11 +376,14 @@ Priorities
>>  ----------
>>
>>  Each package must have a *priority* value, which is set in the metadata
>> -for the Debian archive and is also included in the package's control
>> -files (see :ref:`s-f-Priority`). This information is used
>> +for the Debian archive and is also included in the package's binary
>> +control files (see :ref:`s-f-Priority`). This information is used
>>  to control which packages are included in standard or minimal Debian
>>  installations.
>>
>> +If the *Priority* field is not specified in the source control file, dpkg
>> +sets it to ``optional`` by default starting version 1.22.13.
>
> After the control file nomenclature unification, "source control file"
> should always refer to a «.dsc», in this case I think you mean
> "source package template control file".
>
> Also, not sure whether to make it explicit as in "not specified in any
> of the stanzas" but perhaps that's unnecessary.

Thank you for these comments, Guillem.

Nilesh, would you be able to revise your patch?

Thanks.

-- 
Sean Whitton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1264454

Hi Guillem and Sean,

On 2025-10-02 23:53, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Thu 02 Oct 2025 at 04:38pm +02, Guillem Jover wrote:
> 
>> Hi!
>>
>> On Wed, 2025-09-17 at 23:06:29 +0530, Nilesh Patra wrote:
>>> diff --git a/policy/ch-archive.rst b/policy/ch-archive.rst
>>> index 302dc8d..3bf5abf 100644
>>> --- a/policy/ch-archive.rst
>>> +++ b/policy/ch-archive.rst
>>> @@ -376,11 +376,14 @@ Priorities
>>>  ----------
>>>
>>>  Each package must have a *priority* value, which is set in the metadata
>>> -for the Debian archive and is also included in the package's control
>>> -files (see :ref:`s-f-Priority`). This information is used
>>> +for the Debian archive and is also included in the package's binary
>>> +control files (see :ref:`s-f-Priority`). This information is used
>>>  to control which packages are included in standard or minimal Debian
>>>  installations.
>>>
>>> +If the *Priority* field is not specified in the source control file, dpkg
>>> +sets it to ``optional`` by default starting version 1.22.13.
>>
>> After the control file nomenclature unification, "source control file"
>> should always refer to a «.dsc», in this case I think you mean
>> "source package template control file".
>>
>> Also, not sure whether to make it explicit as in "not specified in any
>> of the stanzas" but perhaps that's unnecessary.

Guillem, if a source package has no Priority field in the source stanza
and has binary packages `foo` and `bar`; let's say `foo` has "Priority:
Required" in its binary stanza, and `bar` omits this field altogether.
In such case, dpkg will default to "Priority: Optional" for `bar` and
"Priority: Required" shall be chosen for `foo` right?

In that case the wording "not specified in any of the stanzas" for dpkg
to default to "Priority: Optional"
may sound a little bit confusing. It may lead to someone thinking for
the above case that `bar` may _not_ be
chosen with "Priority: Optional" (as `foo` specifies this field)?

I've tried to reword this in a less confusing way. Please take a look
below, and just tell me to fix it
further if it still isn't looking good and I'll revise it.

> Thank you for these comments, Guillem.
> 
> Nilesh, would you be able to revise your patch?

Sure! Revised patch pasted below:

diff --git a/policy/ch-archive.rst b/policy/ch-archive.rst
index 302dc8d..764ef76 100644
--- a/policy/ch-archive.rst
+++ b/policy/ch-archive.rst
@@ -376,11 +376,16 @@ Priorities
 ----------
 
 Each package must have a *priority* value, which is set in the metadata
-for the Debian archive and is also included in the package's control
-files (see :ref:`s-f-Priority`). This information is used
+for the Debian archive and is also included in the package's binary
+control files (see :ref:`s-f-Priority`). This information is used
 to control which packages are included in standard or minimal Debian
 installations.
 
+Starting with dpkg version 1.22.13, the *Priority* of a binary package
is
+set to ``optional`` unless specified otherwise in the source or binary
stanzas
+in the source package template control file.
+Therefore, explicitly specifying *Priority* as ``optional`` may be
omitted.
+
 Most Debian packages will have a priority of ``optional``. Priority
 levels other than ``optional`` are only used for packages that should
be
 included by default in a standard installation of Debian.
diff --git a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst
index 9f06cc9..e4390b4 100644
--- a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst
+++ b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst
@@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ The fields in the source package stanza (the first
one) are:
 
 -  :ref:`Section <s-f-Section>` (recommended)
 
--  :ref:`Priority <s-f-Priority>` (recommended)
+-  :ref:`Priority <s-f-Priority>`
 
 -  :ref:`Build-Depends et al <s-sourcebinarydeps>`
 
@@ -138,7 +138,7 @@ The fields in the binary package stanzas are:
 
 -  :ref:`Section <s-f-Section>` (recommended)
 
--  :ref:`Priority <s-f-Priority>` (recommended)
+-  :ref:`Priority <s-f-Priority>`
 
 -  :ref:`Essential <s-f-Essential>`
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1264521

Hi!

On Thu, 2025-10-02 at 21:03:14 +0000, Nilesh Patra wrote:
> On 2025-10-02 23:53, Sean Whitton wrote:
> > On Thu 02 Oct 2025 at 04:38pm +02, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > > Also, not sure whether to make it explicit as in "not specified in any
> > > of the stanzas" but perhaps that's unnecessary.
> 
> Guillem, if a source package has no Priority field in the source stanza
> and has binary packages `foo` and `bar`; let's say `foo` has "Priority:
> Required" in its binary stanza, and `bar` omits this field altogether.
> In such case, dpkg will default to "Priority: Optional" for `bar` and
> "Priority: Required" shall be chosen for `foo` right?

Yes. A binary package will get the Priority field first from an
explicit Priority field in a binary package stanza, otherwise it is
inherited from an explicit field in the source package stanza, and
otherwise it uses the new "optional" default.

> In that case the wording "not specified in any of the stanzas" for dpkg
> to default to "Priority: Optional"
> may sound a little bit confusing. It may lead to someone thinking for
> the above case that `bar` may _not_ be
> chosen with "Priority: Optional" (as `foo` specifies this field)?

Sorry, I meant that phrasing as to convey what I meant not what should
appear as-is in policy (should have made that clear).

> I've tried to reword this in a less confusing way. Please take a look
> below, and just tell me to fix it
> further if it still isn't looking good and I'll revise it.

Thanks, your wording looks indeed more clear. :)

> diff --git a/policy/ch-archive.rst b/policy/ch-archive.rst
> index 302dc8d..764ef76 100644
> --- a/policy/ch-archive.rst
> +++ b/policy/ch-archive.rst
> @@ -376,11 +376,16 @@ Priorities
>  ----------
>  
>  Each package must have a *priority* value, which is set in the metadata
> -for the Debian archive and is also included in the package's control
> -files (see :ref:`s-f-Priority`). This information is used
> +for the Debian archive and is also included in the package's binary
> +control files (see :ref:`s-f-Priority`). This information is used
>  to control which packages are included in standard or minimal Debian
>  installations.

Re-reading the change, I'm not sure this change is correct. The
priority also appears in the .changes and .dsc files.

> +Starting with dpkg version 1.22.13, the *Priority* of a binary package is
> +set to ``optional`` unless specified otherwise in the source or binary stanzas

Perhaps "in the source or its binary stanza"?

> +in the source package template control file.
> +Therefore, explicitly specifying *Priority* as ``optional`` may be omitted.
> +
>  Most Debian packages will have a priority of ``optional``. Priority
>  levels other than ``optional`` are only used for packages that should be
>  included by default in a standard installation of Debian.

Thanks,
Guillem

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1264569

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 2025-10-03 08:40, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Re-reading the change, I'm not sure this change is correct. The
> priority also appears in the .changes and .dsc files.
>
> ...
>
> Perhaps "in the source or its binary stanza"?

Thanks. Revised patch attached with this mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1264570

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 2025-10-03 20:12, Nilesh Patra wrote:
> On 2025-10-03 08:40, Guillem Jover wrote:
>> Re-reading the change, I'm not sure this change is correct. The
>> priority also appears in the .changes and .dsc files.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> Perhaps "in the source or its binary stanza"?
> 
> Thanks. Revised patch attached with this mail.

Sorry, attached wrong file. Attaching the right patch with suggested
changes with this mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1264676

Hi!

On Fri, 2025-10-03 at 14:43:50 +0000, Nilesh Patra wrote:
> Sorry, attached wrong file. Attaching the right patch with suggested
> changes with this mail.

> diff --git a/policy/ch-archive.rst b/policy/ch-archive.rst
> index 302dc8d..cdb55e7 100644
> --- a/policy/ch-archive.rst
> +++ b/policy/ch-archive.rst
> @@ -376,10 +376,15 @@ Priorities
>  ----------
>  
>  Each package must have a *priority* value, which is set in the metadata
> -for the Debian archive and is also included in the package's control
> -files (see :ref:`s-f-Priority`). This information is used
> -to control which packages are included in standard or minimal Debian
> -installations.
> +for the Debian archive and is also included in the package's binary
> +control (see :ref:`s-f-Priority`), ``.dsc`` and ``.changes`` files.
> +This information is used to control which packages are included in
> +standard or minimal Debian installations.
> +
> +Starting with dpkg version 1.22.13, the *Priority* of a binary package is
> +set to ``optional`` unless specified otherwise in the source or its binary
> +stanza in the source package template control file.
> +Therefore, explicitly specifying *Priority* as ``optional`` may be omitted.
>  
>  Most Debian packages will have a priority of ``optional``. Priority
>  levels other than ``optional`` are only used for packages that should be
> diff --git a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst
> index 9f06cc9..e4390b4 100644
> --- a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst
> +++ b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst
> @@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ The fields in the source package stanza (the first one) are:
>  
>  -  :ref:`Section <s-f-Section>` (recommended)
>  
> --  :ref:`Priority <s-f-Priority>` (recommended)
> +-  :ref:`Priority <s-f-Priority>`
>  
>  -  :ref:`Build-Depends et al <s-sourcebinarydeps>`
>  
> @@ -138,7 +138,7 @@ The fields in the binary package stanzas are:
>  
>  -  :ref:`Section <s-f-Section>` (recommended)
>  
> --  :ref:`Priority <s-f-Priority>` (recommended)
> +-  :ref:`Priority <s-f-Priority>`
>  
>  -  :ref:`Essential <s-f-Essential>`
>  

Thanks for the clarifications and updates. Seconded.

Regards,
Guillem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1264981

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

control: tag -1 + pending

Hello,

On Fri 03 Oct 2025 at 02:43pm GMT, Nilesh Patra wrote:

> diff --git a/policy/ch-archive.rst b/policy/ch-archive.rst
> index 302dc8d..cdb55e7 100644
> --- a/policy/ch-archive.rst
> +++ b/policy/ch-archive.rst
> @@ -376,10 +376,15 @@ Priorities
>  ----------
>
>  Each package must have a *priority* value, which is set in the metadata
> -for the Debian archive and is also included in the package's control
> -files (see :ref:`s-f-Priority`). This information is used
> -to control which packages are included in standard or minimal Debian
> -installations.
> +for the Debian archive and is also included in the package's binary
> +control (see :ref:`s-f-Priority`), ``.dsc`` and ``.changes`` files.
> +This information is used to control which packages are included in
> +standard or minimal Debian installations.
> +
> +Starting with dpkg version 1.22.13, the *Priority* of a binary package is
> +set to ``optional`` unless specified otherwise in the source or its binary
> +stanza in the source package template control file.
> +Therefore, explicitly specifying *Priority* as ``optional`` may be omitted.
>
>  Most Debian packages will have a priority of ``optional``. Priority
>  levels other than ``optional`` are only used for packages that should be
> diff --git a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst
> index 9f06cc9..e4390b4 100644
> --- a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst
> +++ b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst
> @@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ The fields in the source package stanza (the first one) are:
>
>  -  :ref:`Section <s-f-Section>` (recommended)
>
> --  :ref:`Priority <s-f-Priority>` (recommended)
> +-  :ref:`Priority <s-f-Priority>`
>
>  -  :ref:`Build-Depends et al <s-sourcebinarydeps>`
>
> @@ -138,7 +138,7 @@ The fields in the binary package stanzas are:
>
>  -  :ref:`Section <s-f-Section>` (recommended)
>
> --  :ref:`Priority <s-f-Priority>` (recommended)
> +-  :ref:`Priority <s-f-Priority>`
>
>  -  :ref:`Essential <s-f-Essential>`

Seconded and applied.  Thank you both very much for your efforts.

-- 
Sean Whitton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1264455

Hi Guillem and Sean,

On 2025-10-02 23:53, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Thu 02 Oct 2025 at 04:38pm +02, Guillem Jover wrote:
> 
>> Hi!
>>
>> On Wed, 2025-09-17 at 23:06:29 +0530, Nilesh Patra wrote:
>>> diff --git a/policy/ch-archive.rst b/policy/ch-archive.rst
>>> index 302dc8d..3bf5abf 100644
>>> --- a/policy/ch-archive.rst
>>> +++ b/policy/ch-archive.rst
>>> @@ -376,11 +376,14 @@ Priorities
>>>  ----------
>>>
>>>  Each package must have a *priority* value, which is set in the metadata
>>> -for the Debian archive and is also included in the package's control
>>> -files (see :ref:`s-f-Priority`). This information is used
>>> +for the Debian archive and is also included in the package's binary
>>> +control files (see :ref:`s-f-Priority`). This information is used
>>>  to control which packages are included in standard or minimal Debian
>>>  installations.
>>>
>>> +If the *Priority* field is not specified in the source control file, dpkg
>>> +sets it to ``optional`` by default starting version 1.22.13.
>>
>> After the control file nomenclature unification, "source control file"
>> should always refer to a «.dsc», in this case I think you mean
>> "source package template control file".
>>
>> Also, not sure whether to make it explicit as in "not specified in any
>> of the stanzas" but perhaps that's unnecessary.

Guillem, if a source package has no Priority field in the source stanza
and has binary packages `foo` and `bar`; let's say `foo` has "Priority:
Required" in its binary stanza, and `bar` omits this field altogether.
Here, dpkg will default to "Priority: Optional" for `bar` and
"Priority: Required" shall be chosen for `foo` right?

In that case the wording "not specified in any of the stanzas" for dpkg
to default to "Priority: Optional"
may sound a little bit confusing. It may lead to someone thinking for
the above case that `bar` may _not_ be
chosen with "Priority: Optional" (as `foo` specifies this field)?

I've tried to reword this in a less confusing way. Please take a look
below, and just tell me to fix it
further if it still isn't looking good and I'll revise it.

> Thank you for these comments, Guillem.
> 
> Nilesh, would you be able to revise your patch?

Sure! Revised patch pasted below:

diff --git a/policy/ch-archive.rst b/policy/ch-archive.rst
index 302dc8d..764ef76 100644
--- a/policy/ch-archive.rst
+++ b/policy/ch-archive.rst
@@ -376,11 +376,16 @@ Priorities
 ----------
 
 Each package must have a *priority* value, which is set in the metadata
-for the Debian archive and is also included in the package's control
-files (see :ref:`s-f-Priority`). This information is used
+for the Debian archive and is also included in the package's binary
+control files (see :ref:`s-f-Priority`). This information is used
 to control which packages are included in standard or minimal Debian
 installations.
 
+Starting with dpkg version 1.22.13, the *Priority* of a binary package
is
+set to ``optional`` unless specified otherwise in the source or binary
stanzas
+in the source package template control file.
+Therefore, explicitly specifying *Priority* as ``optional`` may be
omitted.
+
 Most Debian packages will have a priority of ``optional``. Priority
 levels other than ``optional`` are only used for packages that should
be
 included by default in a standard installation of Debian.
diff --git a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst
index 9f06cc9..e4390b4 100644
--- a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst
+++ b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst
@@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ The fields in the source package stanza (the first
one) are:
 
 -  :ref:`Section <s-f-Section>` (recommended)
 
--  :ref:`Priority <s-f-Priority>` (recommended)
+-  :ref:`Priority <s-f-Priority>`
 
 -  :ref:`Build-Depends et al <s-sourcebinarydeps>`
 
@@ -138,7 +138,7 @@ The fields in the binary package stanzas are:
 
 -  :ref:`Section <s-f-Section>` (recommended)
 
--  :ref:`Priority <s-f-Priority>` (recommended)
+-  :ref:`Priority <s-f-Priority>`
 
 -  :ref:`Essential <s-f-Essential>`
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1264456

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 2025-10-03 02:36, Nilesh Patra wrote:
> Sure! Revised patch pasted below:

Ugh. the patch comes out broken via webmail. Attaching the patch this
time.

Best,
Nilesh

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.bugs.dist

csiph-web