Re: Processed: breaking the build of other packages is RC
On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 04:19:41AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> severity 242696 important
> thanks
>
> On Sat, 2004-06-05 at 19:33 -0700, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
>
> > > severity 242696 grave
> > Bug#242696: net-snmp: [m68k] FTBFS
> > Severity set to `grave'.
> >
> No... making *unrelated* software is release critical, and warrants a
> "critical" severity instead of "grave". grave is defined as:
>
> makes the package in question unusable or mostly so, or causes
> data loss, or introduces a security hole allowing access to the
> accounts of users who use the package.
>
> none of which describe this bug. "important" is the appropriate
> severity (in fact, it could be argued that "normal" is the appropriate
> severity, but I personally like to keep libtool-caused FTBFS bugs at
> important until I've thoroughly checked them myself).
If a FTBFS in a package is RC, it would be very strange if an update of
build dependency package that causes a buld failure wasn't RC...
Besides this, there might be other packages that FTBFS because of this
problem.
> Folks, please stop artificially inflating bug severities in an attempt
> to get them noticed and/or fixed quicker. Most good maintainers are
> likely to have far better an idea of a bug's true severity/urgency than
> anyone passing through the BTS.
Most good maintainers would likely have tried to solve this bug during
the last two months...
> In fact, this bug looks to need reassigning back to net-snmp because
> that package isn't linking its shared libraries properly; but I haven't
> had time to investigate fully, so haven't done that yet.
The problem is a dependency cycle in two libraries in net-snmp.
And I don't any warning in the libtool 1.5.4 documentation mentioning
that this change was intentional.
> Scott
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
Reply to: