Re: Bug #263322
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
> The bug was submitted on 3 Aug 2004, and AFTER that 1.3.26-0woody6
> came out (12 Nov 2004) so this bug could/should have been fixed
> there... !
No, this bug should not have been, and could not have been. The policy
for making changes in stable is very, very conservative:
The requirements for packages to get updated in stable are:
1. The package fixes a security problem. An advisory by our own
Security Team is required. Updates need to be approved by the
Security Team.
2. The package fixes a critical bug which can lead into data
loss, data corruption, or an overly broken system, or the
package is broken or not usable (anymore).
3. The stable version of the package is not installable at all
due to broken or unmet dependencies or broken installation
scripts.
4. All released architectures have to be in sync.
5. The package gets all released architectures back in sync.
It is (or (and (or 1 2 3) 4) 5)[1]
Clearly, this bug doesn't satisfy 1, 2 or 3, and thus should not be
fixed in stable at all. As it has been fixed in testing and unstable,
I'm not quite sure what the problem is.
Don Armstrong
1: http://people.debian.org/~terpstra/message/20041008.103059.4b2f8105.en.html
--
[A] theory is falsifiable [(and therefore scientific) only] if the
class of its potential falsifiers is not empty.
-- Sir Karl Popper _The Logic of Scientific Discovery_ �21
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Reply to: