On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 16:01 +0200, Free Ekanayaka wrote: > SA> It looks like this is already known upstream, but it haven't been fixed > SA> yet. > > Thanks for your answer, do you think they are eventually going to > provide a patch for gnome 2.14, or do will they probably work on > 2.16/2.18?
I believe upstream considers 2.14 obsolete, but it has also been reported as a crasher in 2.16. Any fixes will need to be backported. It would be interesting to know if this crash also happens with 2.18, but I have no way to reproduce it. > SA> The severity for this bug is important, which seems appropriate, "a bug > SA> which has a major effect on the usability of a package, without > SA> rendering it completely unusable to everyone". The bug seems to be > SA> specific to amd64. > > Well, it is "completely unusable to everyone" running amd64 :) So I > would say that this bug actually "makes the package in question > unusable or mostly so" on amd64, that means bug of severity grave on > amd64. > > As amd64 is an arch officially supported by etch, a bug of severity > grave on amd64, is a bug of severity grave for etch, that means a RC > bug. > > I'm not sure if my reasoning is correct, but if so we'd had a RC bug > in etch, and in a very visible point (users and service administration > under the GNOME Desktop). It should be really get fixed. Maybe, I will leave the decision to increase the severity to the maintainers. -- Cheers, Sven Arvidsson http://www.whiz.se PGP Key ID 760BDD22
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
