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

Re: Severity of architecture-dependent bugs

hi shaun,

perhaps someone else will be able to answer this more authoritatively
but in the meantime...

On Sat, Feb 25, 2006 at 11:30:16AM -0700, Shaun Jackman wrote:
> A grave bug has been file against a package I maintain pointing out
> that the package does not work on AMD64 and in fact never has, even
> though it builds on AMD64. Since it turns out this package has never
> worked on AMD64, this bug is not a regression, but the status-quo.
> Should such a bug be grave, or merely important?

assuming that the bug is in fact grave:

as amd64 is currently not officially a supported arch, i would leave
the bug at "important", or perhaps even lower.  HOWEVER: amd64 will
become a supported architecture in like what, 2 weeks?  after
that point, it could/should be justifiably bumped back up to grave.

however "x program from your package does not work" is usually not
justification for a grave status.  grave is typically reserved for
uninstallable packages (that is, dpkg fails), or bugs involving serious
dataloss/security issues.



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: