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

Re: 88 Priority violations in woody

On 29 Apr 2002, Thomas Hood wrote:

> At
> http://qa.debian.org/debcheck.php?dist=testing&list=priority&arch=ANY
> you can peruse the 88 packages which violate Debian policy section
> 2.2, which says that the priority of a package cannot be higher
> than the priority of one of its dependencies.  Let me know if there
> is a flaw in the following reasoning (and pls point me to the
> relevant docs):
> These are all policy violations.
> Since these are all policy violations, they are all "serious" bugs.
> Since they are all "serious" bugs, they are all RC bugs.
> None of the package bts pages I examined had this violation
> reported as a bug.  So it looks to me as if there are about
> 88 RC bugs still to fix, apart from the ones on the RC bug page.

First, several blunt points.

* Policy is not a stick to beat people with.  It's a guideline, that should be
  followed closely, but not exactly.

* Were was this discussed on this mailing list?  All such mass filings should
  be discussed here first, before being filed.  Not after.

* These are not RC bugs.  They just have a severity of serious.  All scripts
  invovled have a way to ignore bugs(bugscan has already been modified(Wichert
  informed me on irc about this))

* Also, dpkg's priority can *NOT* change.  And, the libraries it depends on
  are most likely not going to change.  (dpkg depends on libstdc++3, because
  of dselect)

Now, a bit more discussion.

Yes, policy does say what you say it does.  That's not at issue.  However,
blindly filing bugs, without full understanding of the ramifications, will
very quickly get you severly larted.

I will not point to you any relevant docs.  You obviously have not read the
prominent one that mentions how things like this should be handled.

I've also found out that Craig Small is your AM.  I'm very much against
non-developers mass-filing bugs.  I only wish that something like that
could be enforced.  I've also seen him say that this is a black mark on your

Oh, and if you haven't figured out by now(I won't point you to docs on how to
find out), there are most definately flaws in your reasoning.

ps: It's a shame that murphy currently has a lag time on list mail of 3.5
    hours.  At least it's not as bad as earlier(I heard on irc that
    debian-bugs-dist was delayed 10.5 hours).

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: