Re: A Round of Removals
Anthony Towns <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 09:20:49PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>>> I'll downgrade the bug to important [...] instead of grave
>>> | makes the package in question unuseable or mostly so, or causes
>>> | data loss, or introduces a security hole allowing access to the
>>> | accounts of users who use the package.
> To expand on this. The point of considering bugs that make a package
> completely unusable "grave" is that if a package is *completely*
> unusable, there's no point having it in the archive at all, so we
> shouldn't worry about getting rid of it. If the package is useful,
> but doesn't work for some people, that's not the case, so the "grave"
> severity doesn't apply. OTOH, if it's completely broken on one or two
> entire architectures, it *does* apply: foo_1.2.3-1_powerpc.deb should be
> removed, in the case for example.
You were going to remove the complete package, not only the none-working
I was unable to read this from the quoted description from
http://bugs.debian.org/ and could not find an explanation in the
developers' reference. Could some native speaker beautify this
"Be aware that the respective conditions need only be fullfilled on
one architecture, e.g. the severity of a bug that makes a package
unusable only on arm will be grave although the majority of the users
(i386, powerpc, ...) won't be affected."
I'd submit a bug against doc-debian afterwards.
Hey, da ist ein Ballonautomat auf der Toilette!
Unofficial _Debian-packages_ of latest unstable _tin_