* Andreas Barth (aba@not.so.argh.org) wrote: > * Mike Hommey (mh@glandium.org) [061019 21:14]: > > On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 09:06:42PM +0200, Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org> wrote: > > > * Mike Hommey (mh@glandium.org) [061019 20:42]: > > > > Note how subtly the Etch RC policy removes the first alternative of the > > > > serious bug description... > > > > > > Which do you mean? Please read the Etch RC policy. It tells: > > > | In addition to the issues listed in this document, an issue is release > > > | critical if it: > > > | [...] > > > | * in the maintainer's opinion, makes the package unsuitable > > > | for release > > > > > > So, what does the Etch RC policy remove from the bugs.d.o description? > > > > 'is a severe violation of Debian policy (roughly, it violates a "must" or > > "required" directive), or' > > The html-code for this part is: > <DT><CODE>serious</CODE> > <DD>is a <a href="http://release.debian.org/etch_rc_policy.txt">severe > violation of Debian policy</a> (roughly, it violates a "must" or "required" > directive), or, in the package maintainer's opinion, makes the package > unsuitable for release. > > So, obviously http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#severities defines > that "severe violation of Debian policy" means anything referenced in > the etch_rc_policy-document. I would have thought that meant a violation of http://www.us.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/. I certainly think it's the release manager's responsibility to mark bugs that are not release blocking etch-ignore, but if it is a violation of policy it should still be serious. -- Eric Dorland <eric@kuroneko.ca> ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: hooty@jabber.com 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature