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

Re: more about /usr/share transition

Colin Phipps <cph@netcraft.com> wrote:
>On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 11:08:12AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>> Le Wed, May 16, 2001 at 10:53:17AM +0200, Adrian Bunk ?crivait:
>> > Sorry, but these are "serious" bugs. We want to have /usr/doc symlinks for
>> > _all_ our packages in woody.
>> I'm against submitting more & more RC bugs that are not worth it
>> considering that we don't have the resources available to fix them.
>It may take time, but these bugs are considered serious enough to warrant 
>delaying a release to fix them.
>> Furthermore all those RC bugs that won't get fixed will just be useful
>> to prevent more packages from sid to get into testing.
>If you file against the versions in testing, then they should not count against
>the sid version so ought not to affect packages getting into testing.
>(That's my understanding, anyway)

No, the bug tracking system takes no account of versions. Pseudo-headers
other than Package:, Severity:, and Tags: are purely informational. The
best that the testing scripts can do is make a few guesses based on the
newest version available at the time the bugs were filed.

>> Feel free to ask the maintainer to update their packages but don't submit
>> them as RC bugs.
>If you feel /usr/doc/ symlinks aren't release critical, file the appropriate
>policy ammendment.

Personally I won't downgrade RC bugs that have been filed about it, but
nor will I worry too much about filing them myself. Considering that the
symlinks will go away in a release or two's time, it's a much lower
priority than getting the last few packages moved to /usr/share/doc at

Colin Watson                                     [cjw44@flatline.org.uk]

Reply to: