Re: NMU of libdb4.0 for prio:standard
On Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 02:22:10PM -0500, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Apr 2003, Colin Watson wrote:
> > All these priority mismatch bugs are a waste of time, IMHO. The
> > ftpmasters have to modify the override file anyway in order for anything
> > to happen, and it's perfectly possible for them to do so in the absence
> > of any change to the package (so NMUs for such bugs are not only
> > overkill but useless). Furthermore, in the absence of filed RC bugs
> > priority mismatches do not affect migration into testing, regardless of
> > what debcheck.php may say, so the entire premise of the bug was wrong.
> Are there others? I haven't checked yet. Perhaps at least a comment about
> this should be made to any other such bugs. debcheck.php should probably
> document that priority mismatches do not affect migration to reduce these
> kinds of bugs.
It should also tell people not to report serious bugs based on its
output unless they're sure.
> Does debcheck.php incorrectly not check overrides?
debcheck.php doesn't report these problems any more. Look again ...
> > In any case, if you look closely, you'll find that libdb4.0 was always
> > Priority: standard in its debian/control file, so this must have been
> > due to overrides in the first place, which now say that libdb4.0 is
> > Priority: standard:
> > So this bug should just be closed.
> By who and when?
Ideally Matthew Wilcox or the submitter (cc'ed). Ping?
> Should this bug be downgraded first? I could see this bug being filed
> again so perhaps a downgrade and a wontfix tag until an upload is done
> fixing the Priority field and debcheck.php doesn't mislead people
> about this?
The Priority field was never broken in the package itself, and
debcheck.php does not report any problems with libdb4.0. It does report
a problem with libdb4.0-dev on sh, but that's an irrelevant and
completely broken architecture which you should ignore for now.
> +Package: libdb4.0-dev
That's libdb4.0-dev, not libdb4.0.
Colin Watson [email@example.com]