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

Bug#196367: debian-policy: clarify what to do about priority mismatches

On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 11:16:02PM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-06-06 at 21:39, Chris Waters wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 01:52:58PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > > Every so often, somebody encounters the bit of the policy manual that
> > > says:
> > >   Packages must not depend on packages with lower priority values
> > >   (excluding build-time dependencies). In order to ensure this, the
> > >   priorities of one or more packages may need to be adjusted.
> > > Seeing the "must", they then go and file a bunch of serious bugs.
> > > However, priorities are set by ftpmaster overrides, and, even if the
> > > maintainer uploads a "fixed" version of the package, the priority will
> > > still be wrong in the Packages file until an ftpmaster goes and changes
> > > the override. Thus, filing bugs against individual packages for this is
> > > basically a waste of time.
> The priority is changed in the override file, but I suppose
> it should be changed in the package source too.

Ideally, but it really doesn't matter. It's a minor bug at best.

> Where is the reason to "freak out"?  Freaking out is the wrong
> response to a bug report.  A bug report is not an attack; it is a
> message, containing useful information.

Yes yes, we know all that. However, hundreds of release-critical bug
reports cause very real practical problems for our release management
processes, especially when they are unnecessary. Policy is a tool (an
essential one) to help us produce a better distribution; when it
encourages people to impede the release process for little practical
gain instead of getting the information to where it needs to go, it is
not serving its purpose.

Put another way, the bug is in the override file, not the package. It
should therefore not be filed against the package. Doing so causes
confusion and wastes time.

Colin Watson                                  [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]

Reply to: