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

Re: Severity of architecture-dependent bugs

On Sat, Feb 25, 2006 at 02:08:00PM -0500, sean finney wrote:

> 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?

> 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.

No, the definition of grave is "renders the package unusable or mostly so,
or causes data loss, or introduces a security hole allowing access to the
accounts of users who use the package."  There is nothing that specifies
"unusable or mostly so" refers only to installability.  If you can install
the package but you can't do anything useful with it, that's still broken.

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: