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

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: