On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 01:02:08PM -0700, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > Over the years, I've seen endless confusion about the current definition > > of a critical bug severity: Totally agree. > > makes unrelated software on the system (or the whole system) break, or > > causes serious data loss, or introduces a security hole on systems > > where you install the package. > > > The confusion seems to always be around the "unrelated software" part of > > that definition. The intended meaning is completely unrelated software on > > the system, indicating a package that's mangling the system in some > > fundamental way, but I've frequently seen people believe, sincerely, that > > reverse dependencies, Perl programs that use a buggy module, or X programs > > on a system with a buggy video driver qualify as unrelated software. > > > This makes me think that part of the bug definition is adding more > > confusion than clarity. Should we just drop it? > Could this explanation instead be added as an informative > footnote? Packages that declrare a direct or indirect dependency are > not unrelated? Yes please. Dropping the option altogether seems worse idea than adding an explanation. -- WBR, wRAR
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature