On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 09:49:03AM +0100, Steffen Joeris wrote: > During the last DSA I realised that we have a maildrop and a > courier-maildrop package in debian. Both have the same code and the only > difference afaik are some configure options and maybe a different build > system. However, I don't see a reason for having a separate source > package. IMO courier-maildrop should be build from the maildrop source > package, so that the maildrop source package produces two binary > packages, maildrop and courier-maildrop.
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 10:33:32AM +0100, Steffen Joeris wrote:
> severity 567462 serious
Hi Steffen, thanks a lot for this bug report. While I'm not the
maintainer of courier-maildrop, I understand that it is a PITA for the
security team to have this code duplication.
Nevertheless, I believe the severity of this bug report should be
"important" (as you initially decided), rather than "serious". My
rationale for that is that Debian policy "only" poses a _should_
requirement about convenience code copies (policy §4.13). Generally,
_should_ requirements correspond to bugs (even important bugs), but not
to RC-ness (policy §1.1).
Do you agree with that interpretation? If so, can you please set the
severity of this bug back to important? (Otherwise I can do it.)
Cheers
PS I know you're for a while away from keyboards, in case you read this,
even a simple "yes"/"no" via private email would to, I'll take care
of the rest :-) ... and all the best with your arm!
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...........| ..: |.... Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
