First of all I vote yes.
On Tom's objection I think we already have a mapping table in the form of acs_rels where we would could do many to many maps
if needed but for something we think has value to provide for most objects we would like not to add the overhead of creating
an acs_rel object just to map to the owning package. Also
even if we used a many to many table we generally would want a single "owning package". To enforce that constraint in the mapping table with schema like (package_id, obj_id, relation) would
be expensive and less desirable than having a single field in the acs_object table.
Furthermore we have had acs_rels for some time and it is barely used so I don't see any compelling argument that
we need add more complexity to support something we have
not used to date.
Enough packages have package_id in their object specific store
that I think it's sensible to denormalize it and make an effort to ensure that all packages maintain it.
