On Tue, Oct 16, 2001 at 11:44:12PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote: > So, in that case, how does "X doesn't start anymore" translate into a non-RC > bug? It might, if that were the case. xinit (with a client program specified), gdm, and direct invocation of the server all serve to start the X server just fine, even with the current bug unfixed by the local administrator, which, fortunately, he can do, because *the bug is in a conffile*. In hindsight, I should have not waited for ARM to get built and just released 4.1.0-8, sure. But I hate contributing to the problem that the autobuilders have with, e.g., KDE, where tons of builds get "given-back" because the source package is out of date by the time they get the chance to try compiling it. When making a release of XFree86, I try to take into consideration the users of all of Debian's architectures, not just those that whine the loudest (i386 users). > Branden, you shouldn't have let this bug get into woody. Admit it, learn > from it, and move on. Adam, you shouldn't act like a pompous prick unless you want to maintain XFree86 yourself. I didn't see anyone -- not the release manager, not anyone -- taking the initiative to upgrade the severity of this bug. Given that, I conclude that the matter was left to my discretion. Second-guessing the decision now doesn't do anyone any good. Alternatively, I could never downgrade any bugs that are filed against X, and it would be promptly removed from the distribution due to bugs I can't fix. (See most of the "important" bugs against xserver-xfree86.) -- G. Branden Robinson | Somebody once asked me if I thought Debian GNU/Linux | sex was dirty. I said, "It is if branden@debian.org | you're doing it right." http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Woody Allen
Attachment:
pgpUBage__4JT.pgp
Description: PGP signature