On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 09:58:46PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > Which IMHO is not serious as in release-critical. The inflated severities
> > are an annoying waste of time.
> Unfortunately, they are NOT inflated. "serious" is the correct severity for
> a bug reporting that a package violates a 'must' rule in Debian policy. And
> incorrect build-depends are just that.
Actually, they are inflated. It's not critical for woody's release to have
these things fixed: it doesn't really matter at all whether they're fixed.
Users won't particularly notice, and it's not getting in the way of our
development. It's a sensible thing to fix for woody+1, but it's not release
critical now.
OTOH, policy does say that packages must build, which these don't, so
according to the definition of "serious" (and hence "release-critical"),
these are. That's therefore a bug in the way we define serious.
> What we really need is a way to tag an RC bug as "not to be considered RC,
> due to administrative decision of the release manager".
Easy. "Severity: normal" (or important, or whatever). Bugs either need
to be fixed and will get the package thrown out, or just need to be fixed.
The real problem is that using slightly different verbs in policy to
indicate what gets thrown out of the distribution wasn't such a great
idea, and that really needs to be maintained as a completely separate
list. Oh well. http://people.debian.org/~ajt/woody_policy_addenda.txt
I think post woody, we might try organising a "normal bugs" BSP and
see if that helps us get back in the swing of making sure we really do
address as many issues as we can.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
We came. We Saw. We Conferenced. http://linux.conf.au/
``Debian: giving you the power to shoot yourself in each
toe individually.'' -- with kudos to Greg Lehey
Attachment:
pgp60ptpvujz8.pgp
Description: PGP signature