On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 06:18:31PM +1100, Brian May wrote: > >>>>> "Anthony" == Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes: > Anthony> Personally, I think the definition of the `Important' > Anthony> severity is way too self-referential [...] > > Anthony> FWIW, I think the main use of the `important' level > Anthony> should be for policy violations, rather than usability or > Anthony> security issues (which are already covered by critical > Anthony> and grave). [...] > > Out of curiosity: if a package fails to configure properly and maybe > even prevents other packages from being installed using "apt-get > upgrade" (yes - I know a package which does this), what severity would > you give it? I'd probably give it a `grave' severity, under the expectation that if it's not configured, it's probably not usable. > Some issues: > - people with the package already installed might be able to use it > without problem. As would missing dependencies, eg. I guess I'd only rate missing Dependencies as `important', since the package can still be used without that information, you just have to be cluey enough to apt-get install something first. As opposed to being cluey enough to hack files in /var/lib/dpkg/info. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG encrypted mail preferred. ``The thing is: trying to be too generic is EVIL. It's stupid, it results in slower code, and it results in more bugs.'' -- Linus Torvalds
Attachment:
pgpzOwtgiFGPT.pgp
Description: PGP signature