On Sat, Jul 06, 2013 at 04:10:16AM -0400, Dave Steele wrote: > On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote: > > "serious" when there's a grand total of 0 packages that use this -dev > > package for linking against the library? Not hardly. > > I think this severity: serious mass-bug filing is extremely poorly > > conceived. The fact that these bugs have evaded notice until a lintian > > check was added means that they do *not* have a high impact on the quality > > of the release. If they did, they would have turned up already by way of > > archive rebuild testing. > I'm sorry you feel this way. I used the Policy-based severity > definitions to come up with 'serious', as I described earlier in the > thread. > The bugs did not evade notice. Piuparts has been tracking this issue > for some time, as a non-failing 'issue'. You're missing the point. An archive rebuild finds issues that directly impact the releasability of Debian. piuparts found this issue because it had a test *for this specific issue*. The fact that these issues have not already been found and reported organically, thus showing that they were not causing practical problems for archive buildability, is an indicator of their actual severity. > >> This is being filed as Serious because it represents a violation > >> of Policy. Section 8 states "Packages containing shared > >> libraries must be constructed with a little care to make sure > >> that the shared library is always available". > > The packages you've filed bugs against do *not* contain shared libraries. > That's pretty much the point (and a question of semantics). No, it isn't. You've misunderstood policy by virtue of a selective reading. These bugs were filed against -dev packages. -dev packages, *by definition* do not contain shared libraries; shared libraries are shipped in runtime library packages. So reading this line of policy to apply to packages that don't, and *shouldn't*, contain shared libraries, is twisting the meaning. > ... and libsamba-util-dev does not depend on libsamba-util0. I am not disputing that this is a bug. I am telling you that it is inappropriate to file these bugs at severity: serious. > > You also did not achieve a consensus on debian-devel in favor of this mass > > bug filing before reporting these bugs. At least one person objected to you > > filing these at severity: serious; another objected to this being considered > > an error at all. > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2013/07/msg00115.html > > While in the case of these two bug reports it's definitely a bug in the > > packages and should be fixed, it's nowhere near severity: serious. I > > suspect most of the other bugs are similar. > > Please downgrade the bugs from your MBF to a more appropriate severity. > Again, I am sorry for the confusion. I felt I had achieved consensus, > as evidenced by a quieting of the thread, and no attempts at rebutting > the Policy justification. What has worked well for other MBFs in the past is, once you feel you've addressed the concerns people have raised, re-state your understanding of the consensus. This way there's no confusion when people feel you haven't actually addressed their concerns, or when they're still in the process of drafting a response to you. > I guess the next step is a clearer statement of consensus on what to do > next. I think there is a consensus that these are bugs. There is *not* a consensus that these are policy violations / serious bugs. So downgrading them is clearly the correct course of action. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature