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

Re: On Bugs

On Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 07:51:19AM +0100, John Lines wrote:
> > > I think the cause of such inflated severities (and occassionally
> > > deflated severities: a number of important bugs actually should
> > > be grave or critical, or at least that was the case during the freeze)
> > > is the extremely poor definition of important, namely:
> > > 
> > > important   any other bug which makes the package unsuitable for release. 
> > > 
> > > (from reportbug)
> Perhaps reportbug should do ask - 'Shall I remove this package from your 
> system'
> when a user files a bug of important or higher. If they say no, then downgrade 
> to
> normal.

That's fine unless the bug is a packaging bug, because if the new package
fails in preinst/postinst/etc, the user will definitely not want the old
(working) version of the package removed.


Adam McKenna <adam-sig@flounder.net> | "No matter how much it changes, 
http://flounder.net/publickey.html   |  technology's just a bunch of wires 
GPG: 17A4 11F7 5E7E C2E7 08AA        |  connected to a bunch of other wires."
     38B0 05D0 8BF7 2C6D 110A        |  Joe Rogan, _NewsRadio_
  2:55am  up 118 days, 10 min,  9 users,  load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00

Reply to: