Re: Release-critical Bugreport for January 25, 2002
> > 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.
>
> Does it work on others? I tried with icons in my other packages, they all
> fail. So you say its a problem in my files? It worked in earlier releases...
It worked on a few cases I tried anyway, and failed on another.
Strangely, convert worked when mogrify failed. Perhaps you could try that?
> > I would downgrade this bug when filed against imagemagick.
> Do what pleases you, after all its your bug now...
It's not. As I said, I was only looking at the RC bug list.
> > 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?
> No, defendguin does not need an RC bug because I do not use imagemagick
> anymore.
Great, so we can downgrade this bug.
> I use prebuilt icons now (built with an earlier version of
> imagemagick...), although I would have preferred to build them on-the-fly.
>
> > This is only my two cents. Do you guys agree? Or is this standard
> > Debian procedure and I'm off the wall?
>
> IIRC I did not set the bug severity, I just reassigned the bug to the
> package where it belongs, as suggested by James.
Exactly. That's why I posted. Your package didn't build, so that's RC.
It doesn't mean it's still RC when assigned to another package.
> Of course I want
> imagemagick to be part of woody, but it would be nice if mogrify worked
> again?
Sure.
> What _is_ the problem with mogrify?
I don't know. The bug report log says that it may have problems with
(possibly non-conformant) XPM files. However you were trying to _make_
an XPM file here, so it wouldn't apply.
Peter
Reply to: