śr., 3 paź 2018, 21:49 użytkownik Adrian Bunk <b...@debian.org> napisał:
> On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 09:14:15PM +0200, Marcin Owsiany wrote: > > Maybe I'm missing something, but what was the reason for filing #909352 > as > > serious? Looking at #892016 it does not seem like it was the cause of the > > segfault? Or was it? > > No. > > > If not, then getting rid of squeak-plugins-scratch sounds more like a > > wishlist cleanup request to me than a serious bug. > > "package is completely useless" tends to be treated as RC. > I'm not sure I agree, since having reverse-dependencies seems to prove the contrary. > > All the more that > > removing squeak-plugins-scratch from testing will cause scratch to be > > removed, which is not a great outcome for those using it. > > > > Can you please provide a rationale or downgrade the severity? > > Downgrading the severity wouldn't make sense. > > If it is intentional that squeak-plugins-scratch provides only plugins > that are already in squeak-vm, then this bug should be closed with an > explanation why this is intentional. > > If it is not intentional that squeak-plugins-scratch provides only > plugins that are already in squeak-vm and it is no longer needed, > then fixing the two reverse dependencies is trivial. > Right, but it still requires work, which nobody volunteered to do so far, so one could argue that a high severity is a disservice for our users in the short term... Anyway, thank you for the explanation. Marcin
