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

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: