Re: On Bugs

[tb@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)]

Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:

> important   any other bug which makes the package unsuitable for release. 
> 
> (from reportbug)
> 
> 
> I'd like to get this changed. I think a much, much better definition would
> be as follows:
> 
> important   any other bug which is a severe violation of Debian policy
> 	    (violates a must directive)

There is no notion of "severe" in the Debian policy.  There are
violations, and there are not violations.

In the past, I've entered bugs as "important" which were violations of
policy, and had them reclassified, with the reason being "yes, this
violates policy, but conforming to that aspect of policy is not a
release goal".  

Let's make a release goal for woody that the packages conform to
policy.  Let's start with my favorite: it's contra-policy for two
packages in Optional to conflict with each other.  We could very
easily put a scanning program in the archive and make this very easy
to catch.