Re: Processed: severity of 216768 is important
>> severity 216768 important
> Bug #216768 [apt] [apt] apt mixes essential flag from all sources
> Bug #255969 [apt] [apt] apt mixes essential flag from all sources
> Bug #261411 [apt] [apt] apt mixes essential flag from all sources
> Bug #282278 [apt] [apt] apt mixes essential flag from all sources
> Bug #544481 [apt] [apt] apt mixes essential flag from all sources
> Severity set to 'important' from 'normal'
It seems i have missed the message on d-d-a that severity levels
are inflated in the same way as money in some parts of the world
caused by the economic crisis.
I have also missed the d-d-a message that it is obsolete to send a
description why someone rises/downgrades the severity together
with the control statement or even post something to the bug.
I am sorry for not reading these messages.
I promise to do better in the future and will immediately search
for them to read and understand them so i can obey them in the
future and be no longer offended by someone who obeys them.
In the meantime, could someone please fix at least the help text? [0]
It doesn't apply any more....
>important
> a bug which has a major effect on the usability of a package,
> without rendering it completely unusable to everyone.
Maybe this will help me to accept the different mentality...
(I never thought before that i am with 21 already too old for such things)
Btw, my answer[1] to the bugreport still stands and even some
bugreporters [2] came to the same conclusion before...
Oh, and i outlined a bug in this answer which is the deeper
meaning of all these bugreports i guess, which actually
prevents me from tagging it wontfix - i don't want to repeat
which severity i would grant for it, it is wrong if we consider
the new severity-levels-policy anyway...
Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
David "DonKult" Kalnischkies
[0] http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer.en.html#severities
[1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=544481#86
[2] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=216768#36
Reply to: