severity 428661 wishlist tags 428661 wontfix retitle 428661 don't like to see ubuntu mentioned in the control file kthxbye On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 15:04:04 +0200, Marc Dequènes wrote: > > reopen 428661 > thanks > > > right, feel free to abuse release-critical bug severities for > > nonexistent bugs... > > Policy violation has always been severity Serious, this is not a > personnal choice. Actual policy violations, sure. > > > Can you point at an actual problem, rather than unsubstantiated FUD? > > Happilly, this is not widespread behavior, so, besides Recommends or > Suggests on nonexistent versions or even packages, there are no real > problems _yet_. > > I see no reason why external work should be borrowed without being > properly included. What does that have to do with anything? I asked you to point at an actual bug. > >> Moreover, this is a policy violation : "7.1 Syntax of relationship > > > > No it's not. > > Saying so is not an argument. If you don't agree with this bug, then > call the commity. *sigh* > I don't think we get much quality by being lazy. Someone forgot to > mention the Pre-Depends un the 7.0.0-0ubuntu3 changelog entry, even if > it is easy to guess for a DD, but we don't write it for internal Debian > references only, so my point of view is : this should have been checked > and recompiled. For this i don't ask anything because i know this is a > lot of work to handle such hard packages. But for the control file > information, i won't accept such messy information, leading to a > situation where the version is not easily controlable, and most of all, > would deny any possibility of automatic verifications. > What kind of control and verifications are you talking about? And what is messy about this control file? Cheers, Julien
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature