Re: Proposal: Optional `Priority: optional` and changed `Section` fall-back

Daniel Baumann:
> Hi,
> 
> both sound good (dropping mandatory priority is nice and consistent,
> fixing unknown section behaviour too), thanks!
> 

Thanks for the feedback. :)

> ideally these changes would be in dpkg in trixie, but maintainers would
> start dropping priority fields *after* trixie so that for backports we
> woudn't need to add it back en masse.
> 
> Regards,
> Daniel
> 

I am personally hoping for Trixie as well. Though I am waiting for 
feedback before calling it just in case we missed an important case.

For now, I have found one case in dak that I raised an MR for.
https://salsa.debian.org/ftp-team/dak/-/merge_requests/284

My understanding is that the case would be safe, but annoying to the FTP 
masters (ending up in NEW for manual reject rather than automatic 
reject). Either way, it is a 3-line change.

Best regards,
Niels

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEE9ecZmu9eXGflVYc/dA1oiINl0okFAmdenroACgkQdA1oiINl
0omlJwf+Jnq1XcD0202FAwE0JcfIDLdGppsVn1hqjK/YH8ov/AZV6qH10DkzY41o
t8LqFLOToXjFfEbzDm09uJCgfyqhPnXMRfwixo0NiNhqOINz4d9h34qN1pxIwN85
VFQj/5GruJQAqYHHXKshcHGdyZw9vukYpg7aONYZzDJZZIWkOuc2qxZRvHIq6BXw
WBqDjKlotW/KMwyzowiRgPHGztKptekA83PTSF2AR10yCPwyYcTRtX+wWQTZbsmw
v3x683Yixj0u40p/5BMukb5xUEzHwDPOkdZ8T4d9i6L4mqedb1y24rAXH7pEdLa8
eWCPQLB+JvdzU34TYw9zD0L9mauSYw==
=eS9+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----