Re: Bug tracking system and testing distribution Re: Potato now stable
Joey Hess <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Christoph Martin wrote:
> > So, what is the policy to do with a package for the "testing"
> > distribution, if there is an important bug? Do you remove the package
> > unconditionaly or do you try investigate (like in the rc buglist) if
> > the bug really applies?
> Well if I were AJ I would just mechanically assume critical bugs are
> really critical, placing the onus on the package maintainer or any other
> interested parties to correct the status if it happens to be wrong.
But we can do some things on improving the bugtracking system for some
If the "bug" tool would also report the binary architecture that would
be at least a hint for the maintainer.
The maintainer should have a possibility to set an "binary-port"
attribute for a bug report to all or a list of ports, so that the
automatic scripts can find out if a bug applies to the "testing"
distribution. The default however should be set to all, because if you
find a bug you at first don't know if the bug is also in other
A similar scheme should be there for the version number. The bug
tracking system should have a changeable field for the
version. Perhaps it should record separately the reported version. The
maintainer should be able to change the version field, to show if a
bug applies also to older or newer or specific version.
If we have no such information here we must suppose that the bug
applies to all architectures and all versions.
Christoph Martin, Uni-Mainz, Germany
#what's this? see http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/