package python-coverage severity 726255 wishlist thanks On 15-Oct-2013, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> As the way to use python-coverage is to use /usr/bin/coverage That is not *the* way; in Debian, this same program is available under the less-ambiguous name ‘/usr/bin/python-coverage’, which existing users of this package are using. > I am claiming that this bug is release critical, with severity > "grave", the reason being: > > "makes the package in question unusable by most or all users" I reject that claim, since the full functionality is available to users by using a different command name. So this bug report doesn't fit the “grave” severity definition. > Please don't set the severity lower than it is right now. This issue > *must* be addressed, in one way or another (I'm fine if > update-alternatives isn't used, though I'm convinced that's the way > to go). Regardless of the merits of this request (I think there is a useful discussion to be had here), it is clearly not preventing useability of the package. So I'm re-setting the severity to “wishlist”. > The reason is that python-coverage users (said otherwise: reverse > dependencies of python-coverage) are expecting to have the package > providing /usr/bin/coverage, and otherwise fail to build a coverage > HTML report. I have the case on many of the packages I maintain. The work-around, for now, is to patch those invocations to use the already-provided ‘/usr/bin/python-coverage’ command. If there is a case for this package providing a ‘/usr/bin/coverage’ command, it will not be because the absence is anything more than a wishlist request. -- \ “In economics, hope and faith coexist with great scientific | `\ pretension and also a deep desire for respectability.” —John | _o__) Kenneth Galbraith, 1970-06-07 | Ben Finney <b...@benfinney.id.au>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
