[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug severities (was: Re: wterm in potato)

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


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

Reply to: