Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 08:23:47AM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote: >> Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > We should raise the severity of the bug to grave (better than serious, >> > since it's a usability issue, not a policy violation) and upload a new >> > 0.0.18 version with the minimal patch. I think the release team will be >> > happy with that. > >> Done. > > Sorry, what's the rationale of this bug being marked as 'grave'?
If I understand Russ correctly, I believe it would be that this problem makes the package unusable for amd64 users. That seems compatible with the definition for grave given at: http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#severities http://release.debian.org/etch_rc_policy.txt Although the definition of "important": "a bug which has a major effect on the usability of a package, without rendering it completely unusable to everyone" might suggest that if a problem renders a package unusable only for a portion of users, it is not grave. (If this is the intended interpretation, I suggest that the definition of "grave" should be modified to say "makes the package in question unusable FOR EVERYONE, or mostly so, ...".) I searched a little about this, and found this discussion: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/glibc-bsd-devel/2005-June/000434.html That suggests to me that amd64 specific ftbfs's would warrant "serious" severity, once the amd64 is considered for the next release. > Has this problem been seen on any archs other than amd64, where it > fails the testsuite and therefore generates no binaries? No. > If all the archs where the package has been built have working binaries, I > don't see any reason why this should be treated as RC, despite amd64 being > the missing arch. Ok. What would you like to see happen here? /Simon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
