Re: On Bugs
On Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 02:30:43PM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> On 02-Oct-2000 Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 03, 2000 at 08:15:48AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> >> The problem is that our definition of release critical is flawed.
> >> A package should only hold up the release process if it has
> >> an important (or higher severity) bug report, and the package itself
> >> is important.
> > This is largely what happens anyway, though, no?
> during potato release, it seemed like packages of low importance (extra) were
> dealt with like they were in standard or higher. gedit was the one that I
> remember clearly.
What happened with gedit exactly?
I mean, removing a package from Debian seems to me at least to be horrible
enough to warrant giving people a chance to NMU things before it gets
removed from the dist. And if things get fixed, it seems reasonable to
reinstate it. And ripping packages out of the distribution wholesale
tends to stuff up dependencies (although I presume that's not an issue
So I mean, no one's all that eager to rip out even extra packages, which
may leave them around for longer than they perhaps "deserve", but I don't
think that actually causes problems.
Anthony Towns <email@example.com> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``We reject: kings, presidents, and voting.
We believe in: rough consensus and working code.''
-- Dave Clark
- Re: On Bugs
- From: Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Re: On Bugs
- From: "Sean 'Shaleh' Perry" <email@example.com>