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

Re: Bug mass filling

On Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 03:40:28PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>         Gee. Don't we already have something very like this? 

>      These classifications are roughly equivalent to the bug severities
>      _serious_ (for _must_ or _required_ directive violations), _minor_,
>      _normal_ or _important_ (for _should_ or _recommended_ directive
>      violations) and _wishlist_ (for _optional_ items).  [2]

Those classifications haven't been monitored or updated, so no, we don't.

IIRC that changed pretty soon after woody's release, with the creation of
a specific list of RC criteria maintained by the release team. The woody
policy addenda [0], for instance, said:

	Bashisms generally aren't release-critical, even when they're in
	scripts marked #!/bin/sh. They may be release-critical if their
	breakage causes other problems that are release-critical if they
	ever happen.

In contrast, policy still states:

     Thus, shell scripts specifying `/bin/sh' as interpreter should only
     use POSIX features.  If a script requires non-POSIX features from the
     shell interpreter, the appropriate shell must be specified in the
     first line of the script (e.g., `#!/bin/bash')

Is a bashism in a /bin/sh script a normal bug ("should only use POSIX
features"), or a RC bug ("the appropriate shell bust be specified")? It's
much easier to work out by just looking at the rc_policy text file
maintained by the RM team [1].


[0] http://people.debian.org/~ajt/woody_policy_addenda.txt
[1] http://release.debian.org/etch_rc_policy.txt

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: