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

Groups > linux.debian.bugs.dist > #1276610 > unrolled thread

Bug#1124443: debian-policy: misleading information about Priority field in upgrading checklist

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

Contents

  Bug#1124443: debian-policy: misleading information about Priority field in upgrading checklist Aurelien Jarno <aurel32@debian.org> - 2026-01-01 13:50 +0100
    Bug#1124443: debian-policy: misleading information about Priority field in upgrading checklist Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2026-01-01 14:10 +0100
      Bug#1124443: debian-policy: misleading information about Priority field in upgrading checklist Aurelien Jarno <aurel32@debian.org> - 2026-01-01 15:40 +0100
        Bug#1124443: debian-policy: misleading information about Priority field in upgrading checklist Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2026-01-01 20:50 +0100
          Bug#1124443: debian-policy: misleading information about Priority field in upgrading checklist Aurelien Jarno <aurel32@debian.org> - 2026-01-02 13:20 +0100
    Bug#1124443: debian-policy: misleading information about Priority field in upgrading checklist Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org> - 2026-01-03 12:20 +0100

#1276610 — Bug#1124443: debian-policy: misleading information about Priority field in upgrading checklist

Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.7.3.0
Severity: normal

Hi,

Debian policy 4.7.3.0 stopped recommending the "Priority" field in
debian/control file. The upgrading check list contains the corresponding
entry:

| 5.6.6
|    It is no longer recommended to specify the Priority field in source
|    package control files.  dpkg now defaults it to "optional".

This is misleading information. dpkg indeeds defaults to "optional" if
absolutely no priority field is present in the debian/control file. This
is also correct for the source package stanza. However for the binary
package stanza, it defaults to the value of the source stanza.

This misleading information leaded to a wrong check in lintian (see
#1124442). 

Regards
Aurelien

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1276623

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

Hello,

Aurelien Jarno [01/Jan  1:47pm +01] wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 4.7.3.0
> Severity: normal
>
> Hi,
>
> Debian policy 4.7.3.0 stopped recommending the "Priority" field in
> debian/control file. The upgrading check list contains the corresponding
> entry:
>
> | 5.6.6
> |    It is no longer recommended to specify the Priority field in source
> |    package control files.  dpkg now defaults it to "optional".
>
> This is misleading information. dpkg indeeds defaults to "optional" if
> absolutely no priority field is present in the debian/control file. This
> is also correct for the source package stanza. However for the binary
> package stanza, it defaults to the value of the source stanza.
>
> This misleading information leaded to a wrong check in lintian (see
> #1124442).

I see what you mean but am not sure how to reword it.  Do you have a
suggestion?

-- 
Sean Whitton

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

#1276666

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

Hi Sean,

On 2026-01-01 13:02, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Aurelien Jarno [01/Jan  1:47pm +01] wrote:
> > Package: debian-policy
> > Version: 4.7.3.0
> > Severity: normal
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Debian policy 4.7.3.0 stopped recommending the "Priority" field in
> > debian/control file. The upgrading check list contains the corresponding
> > entry:
> >
> > | 5.6.6
> > |    It is no longer recommended to specify the Priority field in source
> > |    package control files.  dpkg now defaults it to "optional".
> >
> > This is misleading information. dpkg indeeds defaults to "optional" if
> > absolutely no priority field is present in the debian/control file. This
> > is also correct for the source package stanza. However for the binary
> > package stanza, it defaults to the value of the source stanza.
> >
> > This misleading information leaded to a wrong check in lintian (see
> > #1124442).
> 
> I see what you mean but am not sure how to reword it.  Do you have a
> suggestion?

I don't know what is the maximum allowed length for the upgrading 
checklist. Waht about that:

  It is no longer recommended to specify the Priority field in source
  package control files.  If the field is omitted, dpkg defaults to
  "optional" for the source package priority, and binary packages
  inherit the priority from the source package.

Regards
Aurelien

-- 
Aurelien Jarno                          GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B
aurelien@aurel32.net                     http://aurel32.net

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

#1276706

Aurelien Jarno <aurel32@debian.org> writes:

> I don't know what is the maximum allowed length for the upgrading 
> checklist. Waht about that:

>   It is no longer recommended to specify the Priority field in source
>   package control files.  If the field is omitted, dpkg defaults to
>   "optional" for the source package priority, and binary packages
>   inherit the priority from the source package.

How about:

    Specifying the ``Priority`` field in source package control fields is
    no longer recommended unless the priority needs to be changed from the
    default. If the field is omitted, the default source package priority
    is ``optional``, and binary packages inherit the priority from the
    source package.

It's not really relevant to the user that dpkg is the component that sets
the default, only what the semantics are. I think this wording may also
make it clearer that you do still need to think about whether you should
provide Priority because the default is wrong.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)              <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

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

#1276799

Hi Russ,

On 2026-01-01 11:41, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Aurelien Jarno <aurel32@debian.org> writes:
> 
> > I don't know what is the maximum allowed length for the upgrading 
> > checklist. Waht about that:
> 
> >   It is no longer recommended to specify the Priority field in source
> >   package control files.  If the field is omitted, dpkg defaults to
> >   "optional" for the source package priority, and binary packages
> >   inherit the priority from the source package.
> 
> How about:
> 
>     Specifying the ``Priority`` field in source package control fields is
>     no longer recommended unless the priority needs to be changed from the
>     default. If the field is omitted, the default source package priority
>     is ``optional``, and binary packages inherit the priority from the
>     source package.
> 
> It's not really relevant to the user that dpkg is the component that sets
> the default, only what the semantics are. I think this wording may also
> make it clearer that you do still need to think about whether you should
> provide Priority because the default is wrong.

Thanks for proposing this, I find it quite good.

Regards,
Aurelien

-- 
Aurelien Jarno                          GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B
aurelien@aurel32.net                     http://aurel32.net

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

#1276908

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

+1

There is some fallout for missing Priority fields for debian-i18n, see:

https://salsa.debian.org/l10n-team/dl10n/-/merge_requests/11

Both the 4.7.3 text and the proposed wording below (which I also find an
improvement) suggests the code behind i18n.d.o should be improved.

The dl10n code suggests that historically that field has contained some
non-standard values, I'm not sure if that refers to packages in Debian
or outside of Debian.

Regardless it seems good to mostly get rid of this header unless for the
few packages where it is useful.

/Simon

Aurelien Jarno <aurel32@debian.org> writes:

> Hi Russ,
>
> On 2026-01-01 11:41, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Aurelien Jarno <aurel32@debian.org> writes:
>> 
>> > I don't know what is the maximum allowed length for the upgrading 
>> > checklist. Waht about that:
>> 
>> >   It is no longer recommended to specify the Priority field in source
>> >   package control files.  If the field is omitted, dpkg defaults to
>> >   "optional" for the source package priority, and binary packages
>> >   inherit the priority from the source package.
>> 
>> How about:
>> 
>>     Specifying the ``Priority`` field in source package control fields is
>>     no longer recommended unless the priority needs to be changed from the
>>     default. If the field is omitted, the default source package priority
>>     is ``optional``, and binary packages inherit the priority from the
>>     source package.
>> 
>> It's not really relevant to the user that dpkg is the component that sets
>> the default, only what the semantics are. I think this wording may also
>> make it clearer that you do still need to think about whether you should
>> provide Priority because the default is wrong.
>
> Thanks for proposing this, I find it quite good.
>
> Regards,
> Aurelien
>

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web