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.
======================================================================
manoj
--
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: