Hi, Quoting Sam Hartman (2023-10-12 20:28:15) > >>>>> "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. thank you for your input! I do not have a strong opinion or preference on either approach. I'm happy with anything that works so I'm glad that I've got all your replies here on how to best proceed in this situation. Thank you! Santiago also already replied in #837060 agreeing that it would make sense to first upload debootstrap with the change and not wait with that until all the bugs are fixed. Thanks! cheers, josch
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: signature