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. sean --
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature