Re: Release-critical Bugreport for January 25, 2002
> > defendguin still needs an RC bug against it because it doesn't build
> > from source,
Apparently this is fixed anyway.
> > 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._
Let's agree to disagree then. Would that bug be RC if it were reported
outside of this context? defendguin is fixed now. Is it still RC?
> 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.
Before it's a minor part of imagemagick. One of its 8 or so binaries
has problems with certain XPM files. How is that RC for that package?
> > 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.
No, but you get to release woody less slowly. It's annoying, but I
would hold up woody's release for imagemagick, even if I use it every
day (which I do).
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Peter
>
> Just my 0,02
> Adrian
And mine...
Since Adrian just quit hours after posting this, I don't expect to argue
this with him. In fact, I don't want to argue with anyone. It's my two
cents about someone else's RC bug.
Peter
Reply to: