Priority of libsasl2-modules

[Henrique de Moraes Holschuh]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 21, 2007 at 08:55:08AM +0300, Fabian Fagerholm wrote:
> > 
> > Therefore, I'm lowering the priority of the -modules package to
> > optional. Please attach arguments based on policy to any complaints, so
> > that we can approach ftp-master with more than an opinion :)
> > 
> I remember struggling mightily with libsasl a while back because I had
> no -modules package installed (only finding out after many hours of
> trying to cause dents in my desk with my forehead).  However, the
> requirement for having a -modules is clearly documented in the
> README.Debian.  I would wager that the vast majority of the people who
> know enough about system administration to setup a case where they
> absolutely positively need a -modules package to have their setup be
> useful, also know enough to go looking for the README.Debian.
> 
> So, in short, I agree that we can safely make it optional.

Actually, there is *one* scenario where -modules must have the same priority
as the lib package:  if any packages of the same or higher priority actually
*require* SASL to be operational to even work.

Some protocols *require* SASL autentication to work, and those will just
not work at all without -modules.  If anything priority important or higher
implements such a beast, -modules must be of priority important or higher.

Someone might want to check the revdeps of libsasl that are of priority
higher or above for such pitfalls.

-- 
  "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
  them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
  where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
  Henrique Holschuh