On Tue, Oct 03, 2000 at 02:48:36PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Anthony Towns wrote:
> > important any other bug which is a severe violation of Debian policy
> > (violates a must directive)
> It may be a better definition (or not, I've read some good arguments
> against that definition), but there is no hope a debian user will ever
> understand it. Even for a developer, even a developer who is quite
> familiar with policy, it requires a policy lookup to check.
Well, remember that an important bug is essentially an instant "get
this package out of the distribution". I don't really see the issue
with requiring some thought before filing them.
Packages won't make it into "testing" in the first place if they've
got some random important bug against it, and they'll be removed from
"testing" too on a regular basis if new important bugs get filed against
old versions of the package.
> It might make sense to ditch the severity question entirely and ask a
> series of y/n questions like:
>
> Should the buggy package be removed from the next release of debian if
> it is not fixed?
Except we're straight back to complete subjectivity. Should we remove
console-apt because it's ugly for colour blind people? Sean says
yes, I say no. What about if a program doesn't work properly in some
locales? What if it segfaults sometimes, without actually being a security
risk or becoming completely useless because of it?
It would be nice to not end up removing some packages because Sean
reported the bug, and leaving other packages in the distribution because
someone else reported the bug.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <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
Attachment:
pgpanGUvADP5Q.pgp
Description: PGP signature