Re: Ftpmaster bug reports are not processed nearly fast enough.
Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org> writes:
> * Michael Banck (mbanck@debian.org) [061129 13:50]:
>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 11:06:55PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> > As for the bugs requesting change of priorities in the Overrides
>> > file, many appear to simply be ignored permanently. #263887 is the
>> > canonical example. I recommend eliminating the overrides file for
>> > packages of priority 'standard' and lower, and instead always
>> > allowing package maintainers to set their own package priority among
>> > 'extra', 'optional', and 'standard',
>>
>> As `standard' is what some front ends still install by default AFAIK,
>> this might lead to bloat when more and more maintainers think their
>> package really should be standard.
>
> For standard, that seems like a bad idea. For extra and optional (and
> also sections), a half-override database could make sense, i.e.
> overrides are only taken from the database if the database has an entry,
> and the database doesn't have an entry usually, and also entries are
> purged (normally) in case package and database agree (so that ftp-team
> could easily move packages around, but once the package maintainer has
> caught up with the database, the maintainer is responsible for future
> sections).
So I change the priority to what ftpmaster thinks, wait a month for
the entry to get purged and then change it back to what I think and
get it?
Purging sounds dangerous. :)
MfG
Goswin
Reply to: