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

Re: Release-critical Bugreport for January 25, 2002



On Fri, 25 Jan 2002, Peter S Galbraith wrote:

>
> I was looking at the RC bug list...
>
> BugScan reporter <bugscan@debian.org> wrote:
>
> > Package: imagemagick (debian/main)
> > Maintainer: Ryuichi Arafune <arafune@debian.org>
> >   123133 defendguin_0.0.8-1(alpha/unstable): fails to build
>
> This bug (and merged #126968) might have been of severity serious when
> filed against defendguin (because it failed to build when a call to
> mogrify failed), but it's not a severity serious bug against
> imagemagick, since only one of its many commands fails on a small subset
> of files.  It would make no sense to keep all of imagemagick out of
> woody because mogrify fails on _certain_ XPM files.
>
> I would downgrade this bug when filed against imagemagick.

This bug means that something that the latest versions of imagemagick have
a bug that break the building of other packages. This should really be RC.

Did anyone (e.g. the maintainer of imagemagick) ever try to fix this bug
or to report it upstream?

> defendguin still needs an RC bug against it because it doesn't build
> from source, but a minor or normal bug in one package shouldn't be
> escalated to 'serious' because another package uses that feature at
> build-time.  Right?

Wrong.

_It breaks the building of other packages._

The bug is in imagemagick and until someone figures out that there's a
reason why it can't be fixed in the forseeable future I don't see why
defendguin should work around this bug.

> This is only my two cents.  Do you guys agree?  Or is this standard
> Debian procedure and I'm off the wall?

IMHO "standard Debian procedure" is that you try to fix the bug before you
look for excuses why you can downgrade it because our packages don't
become better by downgrading bugs.

> Thanks,
>
> Peter

Just my 0,02
Adrian




Reply to: