Re: severity of bugs that FTBFS because of missing B-D

[Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org>]

>>>>> "Johannes" == Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues <josch@debian.org> writes:
    >> also because technically it's the right decision from the release
    >> team.  these bugs are *currently*, in real life, merely cosmetic.

    Johannes> I disagree they are cosmetic or otherwise I would not've
    Johannes> encountered them in my own work in Debian. But lets assume
    Johannes> that you mean that they are only cosmetic as far as what
    Johannes> the buildds do are concerned. In that case, would you
    Johannes> rather be in favour of first changing debootstrap to not
    Johannes> include Priority:required anymore in the buildd variant
    Johannes> and only *then* raise their severity because only then an
    Johannes> upload would really fail on the buildds? My idea was to do
    Johannes> it the other way round but as said above this is of course
    Johannes> up to the release team.

We normally do it the other way around.
For example in a transition, often bugs start as important when they
will ftbfs in the future.
Then when the transitioning software hits unstable, we mark them
serious.

I understand it's more complex here because on some non-buildd
environments these packages already ftbfs.
But I do think it would be better to merge into debootstrap and then
upgrade the severity of the bugs.
I agree with Holger here.
I note that none of us are on the release team.