Re: Bits from the RM
> On Dec 4, 2003, at 10:56, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > 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.
> More importantly, it'd be quite counterproductive to remove it. But
> having a RC bug does not mean the RM will remove it; indeed, he may even
> chose to 'sarge-ignore' the bug.
Well, earlier in the thread people were talking about a scenario in
which packages with RC bugs would automatically get removed. I was just
pointing out that it wouldn't be fair to elevate a non-RC bug to RC
simply because _another_ package uses that bit (and could probably work
around it anyway).