Re: List of bugs that *must* be fixed before releasing Slink
> > defrag 32731 defrag: e2dump quits with check_block_location:6678674146834  (Adam Heath <email@example.com>)
> I thought that the bug submitter and the package maintainer have
> agreed to remove this package from slink and potato and place it
> into experimental.
Perhaps they have. Apparently it hasn't happened yet, though.
> > dpkg 21182 dpkg: dpkg can go into an infinite loop with --force-configure-any  (Ian Jackson and others <firstname.lastname@example.org>)
> > dpkg 28519 dpkg: dpkg creates circular symlinks  (Ian Jackson and others <email@example.com>)
> > dpkg 28817 dpkg takes no care over libdpkg  (Ian Jackson and others <firstname.lastname@example.org>)
> > dpkg 30090 weirdass dpkg coredumps and xbase upgrade insanity  (Ian Jackson and others <email@example.com>)
> > dpkg 33046 dpkg: severe breakage after removal of xbase  (Ian Jackson and others <firstname.lastname@example.org>)
> If we consider these bugs *release* critical we won't be able to
> release slink soon.
I know. Every distribution of Debian has released with dpkg bugs like
> Bug#28519 was triggered by a broken xbase or other xfree86 package which
> is fixed now. It's unlikely to happen again.
> Bug#28817 is broken design / broken nmu but doesn't hurt. I understand
> that the author of this package considers this bug as important
> but it is not release critical. Please exclude it from this
> list - the same applies to Wichert.
By definition, "important" means "release critical". From the bug
any other bug which makes the package unsuitable for release.
The "critical" and "grave" levels can be forced because of the nature
of the bug (eg. security). There are cases where it isn't feasable to
fix these bugs, the nature of the bug requires that severity, and the
package is an important part of the distribution. Thus, the bug gets
excluded from the "release necessary" list.
The "important" level simply states that the package is unsuitable for
release. If it is suitable for release, then it's not "important". There
is no reason to ever manually exclude these types of bugs.
> Bug#30090 looks... ummh difficult to fix. After reading the report I'm not
> sure if it's likely to happen again when upgrading hamm -> slink.
> It didn't happen to my upgradings but that doesn't have to mean
We'll probably release with it.
> Bug#21182 is not happening when using default methods. If you use any of the
> "special" switches --force-* you have to be aware that strange things
> may happen. I agree that this bug is important though, but I don't
> consider it release critical. Using --force-configure-any is done
> on your own responsibility. Please exclude it from this list - the
> applies to Wichert.
As above, it's "important". There is no reason to manually exclude it
because the same reasons to manually exclude it are the same reasons to
downgrade it to "normal".
( email@example.com )
All is fair in love and war.