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

Re: WNPP now on the BTS

On 02-Aug-00, 04:20 (CDT), Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote: 
> On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 10:28:22AM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> >  The tags to be used and corresponding severities would be:
> >      O    important  The package has been Orphaned.  It needs a new
> >                      maintainer as soon as possible.  If the package
> >                      as a Priority of standard, required or essential,
> >                      the severity should be set to grave.
> [snip]
> "important", "grave" and "critical" bugs generally mean a package needs to
> be removed from the distribution. Orphaning a package, in the normal case,
> doesn't imply this. Does it?
> I'd suggest having packages maintained by -qa be a "normal" bug,
> unless they're standard or above in which case perhaps "important"
> could be justified.

If the packages is standard, required, or essential, I don't think it's
acceptable for it to be orphaned when we release. Such a package should
either be maintained or put at a lower priority. If it cannot be put at
a lower priority (glibc, for example), then it's even more important
that it be maintained. (Historically, I can't recall an required or
essential package being orphaned -- usually the people maintaining them
hand them off to some other willing maintainer, rather than dropping
them, which speaks well for us.)

Hmm. Maybe wnpp bugs shouldn't be excluded from the RC list, but instead
only made important or higher if they fall into the above category
(orphaned and standard/required/essential). We (Debian) need to agree
that an orphaned package of priority s/r/e is an RC bug if we are going
to do this, though.

> It'd make more sense to me to have:
> 	wishlist:	RFP, ITP, ITO, ITA, W
> 	normal:		O
> and maybe:
> 	important:	O(>=standard)

This makes sense to me.


Reply to: