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
> 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
> 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.
"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