> Michael Tautschnig wrote: > > In my opinion the severity of this bug should be critical: It breaks > > installation of unrelated software. Just to show some logs: > > I prefer for my general sanity, to not call all packages that BUILD > using debhelper "unrelated" for the purpose of determining whether > debhelper bugs are RC. Using your reasoning, nearly any bug in debhelper > can be claimed to be RC. > I think you got me wrong on this one: The packages I considered unrelated were not blitz++, but rother flex and the like, which were to be installed later on. Even more so as blitz++ was considered to have been installed correctly (which may be a bug of its own).
> > If nobody objects, I'll upgrade the severity of this bug to ensure the > > current > > version won't enter etch. > > Etch already had the current version of debhelper. > Sure, but I guess it won't be part of the upcoming stable release, if neither this bug is fixed nor its severity is downgraded. > Can't say I follow any of your reasoning. > Does my above explanation of "unrelated" do any good in that direction? I've sent the mail before upgrading the severity to get such objections... Anyway, feel free to downgrade the severity, but _please_ fix this issue (and after all, there seems to be a reasonable patch there already). Thanks for your efforts, Michael
pgpnS4dyNLPLa.pgp
Description: PGP signature
