[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Right of a maintainer not to respect FHS

On Mon, 04 Apr 2005, Pierre THIERRY wrote:
> I filed a bug with severity serious, as this breaks Policy 9.1.1
> (FHS is mandatory). But the maintainer argued that R was packaged
> like this from the beginning, and that because it must stay in the
> distribution, the bug had to be downgraded to wishlist.

Then you upgraded it to serious again,[1] then Steve downgraded it[2],
then Dirk downgraded it,[3] then you upgraded it *again*,[4] then he
downgraded it again.[5]

If you have a specific problem with the way a maintainer is handling
the severity of a bug, the appropriate mechanism is to talk to them
and convince them to upgrade the bug *themselves*, not to play BTS
tennis with them.

If you're sure that the bug should actually be upgraded, then discuss
it on -devel, and get rough consensus, which should then convince the
maintainer. If not, proceed to the ctte or similar as a last resort.

Otherwise, all you're doing is abusing the BTS, no matter how correct
your actual appraisal of the severity bug is.

Don Armstrong

1: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=300765&msg=13
2: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=300765&msg=14
3: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=300765&msg=19
4: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=300765&msg=26
5: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=300765&msg=30
Build a fire for a man, an he'll be warm for a day.  Set a man on   
fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
 -- Jules Bean

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: