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

Re: PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures

On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 04:22:19AM +0100, James Troup wrote:
> Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> writes:
> > >   tags 113360 wontfix
> > >   severity 113360 wishlist
> > >   thanks
> Which means since you won't leave the bug closed, I'll mark it wontfix
> instead.  That doesn't alter my statement in the close mail and
> repeated here on -devel.  Since you don't seem to (want to)
> understand, I'll try one more time: xmailtool will be processed as
> normal.

So in other words, the request in the subject line of the bug report
"please add xmailtool to overrides/katie database? will actually be done
at some point?

How does that mesh with the "wontfix" tag, or closing the report?  If
you do actually intend to resolve the report using the method suggested
by the submitter, that sounds like an ordinary bug fix to me.  The kind
of report you close when the matter is resolved.

> You are not going to harass us into special casing you.

I wouldn't dream of it, hence the proposal in this thread.

Anyway, as it stands, people with the current version of the package
installed will be dealing with Bug #112645, which makes it difficult to
upgrade a box to testing.

The "urgency" field of a package upload is meaningless if a package
can't be processed because of changes that need to happen to the katie
database first.  Is that a deliberate or accidental policy?

G. Branden Robinson                |     Exercise your freedom of religion.
Debian GNU/Linux                   |     Set fire to a church of your
branden@debian.org                 |     choice.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |

Attachment: pgpmmj1P6dRdQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: