Re: Bug#323826: tetex-bin: postinst fails
Joerg Sommer <joerg@alea.gnuu.de> wrote:
> Frank Küster <frank@debian.org> wrote:
>> Jörg Sommer <joerg@alea.gnuu.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Package: tetex-bin
>>> Version: 3.0-5
>>> Severity: normal
>>
>> It really doesn't matter now, but this bug would have deserved at least
>> "important" severity, if not grave.
>
> For a package in experimental? I thought bugs for experimental are
> handled in a different manner.
Until a couple of days ago, I assumed that you file a bug just with the
severity it deserves by itself, and it's just up to the archive
management software and actual people to differentiate (e.g. not to
prevent the unstable->testing transition on the basis of bugs in
experimental, not to fix RC bugs in experimental as fast as usual, and
not removing packages from the archive as unmaintained if there are
long-outstanding RC bugs in experimental).
On the other hand, I learned recently that the unstable->testing
transition software seems to be confused by the versioned BTS, and at
least the web information at
http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=tetex-bin
indicates that tetex-bin's transition has been, among other things,
delayed by that.
However, since no package waits for us, and it's still a couple of weeks
until etch is going to be released (just kiddin'), I don't care much,
and prefer to name bug severities as they are. If you look at the RC
bug list, there have always been a couple of RC bugs in experimental in
different packages
Regards,
--
Frank Küster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer
Reply to: