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

Re: On Bugs

>>"Roland" == Roland Rosenfeld <roland@spinnaker.de> writes:

 Roland> Bad idea.  How do you define "severe violation"?

	One where policy defines one may file a bug with severity
 higher than normal.

 Roland> IMHO it is a very severe violation of policy, if a package
 Roland> doesn't provide man pages for all binaries in PATH.  But with
 Roland> your new definition of important 10% (or more?) of the
 Roland> packages have at least one important bug because of missing
 Roland> man pages.

	Thankfully, this is not a matter of opinion. 

     In this manual, the words _must_, _should_ and _may_, and the
     adjectives _required>_, _recommended_ and _optional_, are used to
     distinguish the significance of the various guidelines in this policy
     document.  Packages that do not conform the the guidelines denoted by
     _must_ (or _required_) will generally not be considered acceptable for
     the Debian distribution.  Non-conformance with guidelines denoted by
     _should_ (or _recommended_) will generally be considered a bug, but
     will not necessarily render a package unsuitable for distribution.
     Guidelines denoted by _may_ (or _optional_) are truly optional and
     adherence is left to the maintainer's discretion.

     These classifications are roughly equivalent to the bug severities
     _important_ (for _must_ or _required_ directive violations), _normal_
     (for _should_ or _recommended_ directive violations) and _wish-list_
     (for _optional_ items).  [2]
[2]  Also see RFC 2119. 


 For every bloke who makes his mark, there's half a dozen waiting to
 rub it out. Andy Capp
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: