Re: First draft of review of policy must usage
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 09:37:33PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > There's nothing in the constitution that says RMs are *bound* by policy's
> > definition of what is or isn't a release-critical bug, either.
> Neither there's something there that says RM are allowed to ignore the policy.
But the burden of proof isn't on me here; you're the one trying to assert
that there's something *wrong* with what the RMs are doing.
> > Anyway, it doesn't make sense to make POSIX sh an RC requirement for etch at
> > this stage of the release cycle, but I would be in favor of the release team
> > endorsing 0-day NMUs for any such bugs. I'll discuss this with Andi.
> If the POSIX sh affect the usability of the package it's a RC
> bug. It'll make the package useless to people using dash as shell, for
> example. See bellow:
> ,----[ http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer.en.html#severities ]
> | grave
> | makes the package in question unusable or mostly so, or causes
> | data loss, or introduces a security hole allowing access to the
> | accounts of users who use the package.
> `----
"Unusable or mostly so" does not mean "unusable in select, minority
configurations explicitly enabled by the user." dash as /bin/sh is a corner
case, not the common case; which means such bugs do not in fact meet the
definition of "grave".
They are nevertheless *significant* bugs in those packages (one might even
call them, er... "important" bugs), and Andi has agreed with me that these
are good candidates for 0-day NMUs, so this will be mentioned in an upcoming
mail to d-d-a.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Reply to: