Re: Bug#277074: Circular dependencies are not a good idea
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 08:24:49PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 08:19:54PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 08:01:17PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> > > You file it at 'important'. The 'serious' severity is defined by the
> > > release managers, and unfulfillable recommends is not one of the
> > > criteria. Yes, this is not completely obvious from the documentation of
> > > the BTS, since this used to be different. It is currently true, though.
> >
> > This is wrong. "serious' is defined in section 1.1 of the Debian Policy
> > Manual. [1]
>
> http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#severities
> | serious
> | is a severe violation of Debian policy[2] (roughly, it violates a
> | "must" or "required" directive), or, in the package maintainer's
> | opinion, makes the package unsuitable for release.
Note the "roughly" here. Even by its own admission, the Debian Policy
Manual is not an exact definition of serious bugs, merely a guideline:
These classifications are roughly equivalent to the bug severities
_serious_ (for _must_ or _required_ directive violations), _minor_,
_normal_ or _important_ (for _should_ or _recommended_ directive
violations) and _wishlist_ (for _optional_ items). [2]
Note, again, the "roughly".
> [2] http://release.debian.org/sarge_rc_policy.txt
>
> And [2] says:
> | The purpose of this document is to be a correct, complete and canonical
> | list of issues that merit a "serious" bug under the clause "a severe
> | violation of Debian policy".
>
> Serious was created expressly for release management purposes, and it is
> within the RM's domain, or otherwise at least the BTS manager's domain
> (which happens to have one person in common) to define it.
In case it's not obvious, I am in full support of Jeroen here, in both
of the above capacities.
Cheers,
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@debian.org]
Reply to: