Re: 88 Priority violations in woody
On Tue, Apr 30, 2002 at 01:30:20AM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> * Policy is not a stick to beat people with. It's a guideline, that should be
> followed closely, but not exactly.
I think you are misquoting this. Policy is not a stick means that you can
not add new things to policy that a majority or large number of packages
violate. But this particular piece of policy is very old, and always
applied. Violations should be pursued strongly, or policy should be relaxed.
That does not mean I approve the mass filing as it happened here.
> * These are not RC bugs. They just have a severity of serious.
I agree with that. It would be good if we had a way to make this more
automatic, eg I file a bug as
It's just a matter of keeping related meta data in one place (eg the BTS)
instead spread in various scripts.
> * 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)
Here, dpkg depends on libstdc++2.10-glibc2.2, and that is priority required.
So I guess libstdc++3 will follow suite. Or you can possibly split out dselect.
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org email@example.com
Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org firstname.lastname@example.org
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org