Re: Release-critical Bugreport for August 27, 1999
On Mon, Aug 30, 1999 at 09:58:49PM +0200, Ruud de Rooij wrote:
> On 1999/08/30, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 30, 1999 at 09:27:40PM +0200, Ruud de Rooij wrote:
> > > So if there is no bug report against something, it works correct?
> >
> > If it does not, there should be a bug report.
>
> That is not the same thing.
Yes, I know that. I'm a math student, I should know the difference
between the two directions of an implication.
> Of course there should be bug reports for
> incorrect packages, but that does not mean one can conclude a package is
> correct in the absence of bug reports.
My point is that if you consider the behaviour of dinstall erroneus,
you should file a bug. Since nobody has not done so, I may conclude that
it has not itched anyone too much and hence is not a big deal.
> Of course it is your bug report.
Then tell me, what can I do to fix it.
> You've done your part to fix it, but you
> cannot deny that your package in the current stable version of debian has
> that bug.
No I can't, and I don't, but there's nothing I can do about such a bug.
So it's not my bug to fix.
> Therefore it should be in the bug tracking database listed under
> that package.
No. There should be a list of bugs fixed in unstable but not in stable,
sorted by package, yes. But I don't want n+1 bugs cluttering the list
of bugs I need to address.
> > "Severity: fixed" is for NMU's.
>
> Says who?
Says I. ;-)
I believe that it was the original meaning, but I'm too lazy to look
it up now. And *I* prefer not to use "severity: fixed" for bugs I as
the maintainer don't need to act upon; I want those bugs gone from my
todo list.
--
%%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % gaia@iki.fi % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%%
""
(John Cage)
Reply to: