Re: Bits from the RM
"Nikita V. Youshchenko" <yoush@cs.msu.su> wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 05:32:59PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
>>> Can "requesting removal from archive" be automated, to occur say after 3
>>> weeks of inactivity of rc/grave/serious bug?
>>>
>>> As a DD, I assume there is some pride and/ or utility in having your
>>> package in the archive. This would give you a little "no nonsense"
>>> wakeup call I would guess. And if *even the packager themselves* do not
>>> have enough pride/ utility value in worrying at that point, then it is
>>> likely better to get removed.
>>
>> A release critical bug in one package could be caused by a non-release
>> critical bug in another package.
>
> Doesn't this mean that "non-release critical bug in another package" should
> become release critical?
It has happenned, and I disagreed. I remember when Imagemagick's
`convert' failed to convert certain files to certain other types. The
`convert' binary is one of many in Imagemagick and it worked correctly
for the vast majority of cases. But another package's was using convert
in the build stage to convert some images and it was failing. The bug
was elevated to release-critical. I don't think it would be fair to
remove imagemagick from the distribution for such a case.
Peter
Reply to: