Re: Incomplete build depends on binary-all packages
>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
Anthony> 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.
Anthony> Actually, they are inflated.
For some definition of inflated. These are serious bugs, in
that they violate policy; they may not be deemed RC, and that is
your prerogative.
Anthony> It's not critical for woody's release to have these things
Anthony> fixed: it doesn't really matter at all whether they're
Anthony> fixed. Users won't particularly notice, and it's not
Anthony> getting in the way of our development. It's a sensible thing
Anthony> to fix for woody+1, but it's not release critical now.
So as long as users do not notice, it is OK to have packages
that do not build from source?
Anthony> OTOH, policy does say that packages must build, which these
Anthony> don't, so according to the definition of "serious" (and
Anthony> hence "release-critical"), these are. That's therefore a bug
Anthony> in the way we define serious.
No. It is a bug in the way we define RC. Really, RC bugs
should be orthogonal to severities -- serious bugs are violations of
policy -- period. The release manager decides which bugs are RC,
perhaps with a tag. By default, certain severities are automatically
tagged RC. The RM comes and adjusts the tag.
Simple. Clean. Orthogonal. Does not require artificial
deflation of bug severities.
>> 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".
Anthony> Easy. "Severity: normal" (or important, or whatever). Bugs
Anthony> either need to be fixed and will get the package thrown out,
Anthony> or just need to be fixed.
This is truly a bad idea. You are losing information (well, I
guess one can dig into the bug history to figure out what the true
severity needs to be) just because you are overloading the severity
with the RC-ness of the bug.
Anthony> The real problem is that using slightly different verbs in
Anthony> policy to indicate what gets thrown out of the distribution
Anthony> wasn't such a great idea, and that really needs to be
Anthony> maintained as a completely separate list. Oh
Anthony> well. http://people.debian.org/~ajt/woody_policy_addenda.txt
I'll weaken the wording to suggest these are merely automated
defaults, and the RM has the final say.
manoj
--
Three great scientific theories of the structure of the universe are
the molecular, the corpuscular and the atomic. A fourth affirms,
with Haeckel, the condensation or precipitation of matter from ether
-- whose existence is proved by the condensation or precipitation
... A fifth theory is held by idiots, but it is doubtful if they know
any more about the matter than the others. Ambrose Bierce, "The
Devil's Dictionary"
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: