Hi Nilesh, On 2021-09-25 17:55, Nilesh Patra wrote: > Actually, this bug is now triggering an ugly autorm on several packages. > And since it needs to travel via NEW, they might end up getting removed > from testing. > > @Andrius, since you wrote: > >> So far, there has not been other libcifppX binary package, thus no >> damage is done. However, future libcifppX packages should not contain >> static files, in particular these: > and since this is not doing any damage for now, do you think we could > reduce the severity to important for now? > We cannot do another upload on top of the one we will be sending to NEW > w/o hooping via NEW again, anyway, > so I find it safe to drop the severity for now.
Normally I would concur here, as I do not read [1] as allowing anyone to override severe violations of the Debian policy. Moreover, autorm deadline is reset each time a message arrives on this bug thread. Nevertheless, there are no real conflicts involving libcifpp1 as of now, and since 1.0.1-5 is in NEW already, there should be none in future releases too. [1] https://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#severities Cheers, Andrius
