On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 04:47:30AM -0700, Karl Chen wrote: > >>>>> On 2005-07-08 03:50 PDT, Steve Langasek writes:
> Steve> Can you please confirm whether these packages build > Steve> with gcc-*4.0*? I know that gcc-3.4 is supposed to be > Steve> almost identical to gcc-4.0, but the one Debian is > Steve> using is gcc-4.0, not gcc-3.4, which is an important > Steve> difference for whether these bugs should be treated as > Steve> severity: serious. > Sorry if I overrated these bug reports - I also thought 'serious' > is too high; I just chose 'does-not-build' in reportbug(1). I > don't have strong opinions on this so I would gladly file them all > with lower severities. > If 'serious' is incorrect in these situations, perhaps > 'does-not-build' should choose a lower priority, or the UI should > make it clear that 'does-not-build' = serious (it's placed next to > 'normal')? A lot of people might be filing FTBFS bug reports in > the coming days... It's not necessarily the case that "serious" is the incorrect severity -- it's just that if you were using gcc-4.0 instead of gcc-3.4, it would be very clear *if* it was an RC bug, and the bug reports would bea little more useful to everyone involved. :) Cheers, -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
