Control: severity -1 wishlist Hello Guillem Jover.
Thanks for your input on this bug report... Unfortunately I missed it tough, not sure why it didn't reach me as you seem to have included me in the recipients. I also just read your reasoning in https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2016/11/msg00538.html that if you don't intend to work on something (which if I understood your mail correctly you don't intend here), or maybe your point was that the maintainer doesn't intend to work on it (and I don't, but I'm just an uploader OTOH the Debian GNOME team mostly relies on me taking care of rygel) then the correct severity is wishlist. I'm thus setting that severity on this bug report despite not ever having seen something in policy to support your reasoning, but I trust you.... On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 04:35:31PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > Control: reopen -1 > > Hi! > > On Thu, 2016-10-20 at 20:15:06 +0000, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: > > Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 22:14:11 +0200 > > From: Andreas Henriksson <andr...@fatal.se> > > To: Santiago Vila <sanv...@unex.es> > > Cc: 841098-d...@bugs.debian.org > > Subject: Re: Bug#841098: not fixed in rygel 0.32.1-1 > > Message-ID: <20161020201411.ga27...@fatal.se> > > User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) > > X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.3 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER, > > RP_MATCHES_RCVD,VERSION autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no > > version=3.4.0-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 > > > The above mentioned upload was done as a source-only upload. > > It built successfully not only in my local environment but also on *all* > > architectures (and thus on atleast one buildd for each architecture). > > > This is obviously a problem in your environment. > > As Santiago has shown this has also happened on the buildds, very > recent example being: > > > <https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=rygel&arch=ppc64el&ver=0.32.0-2&stamp=1475601506> > > <https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=rygel&arch=s390x&ver=0.32.0-1&stamp=1474571422> > > And he can still reproduce it. If this is, say, a timing issue, then it > might not always manifest itself. It does not mean it's not present. A > segfault in the buildds is a clear indication this is not an imagined > situation. > > > The debian bug tracking system is not a support forum. If you need > > personal support, then you need to negotiate a support contract first. > > The debian bug tracking system is not the place for this. > > I'm sorry to say but I feel this comment is inappropriate. Santiago is > doing distro-wide QA, I'd even go as far as to hazard he does not even > use this package at all! Me neither.... but I still have to fix it or what's your point? If QA in Debian is defined as "pointing out stuff noone cares about and making a fuzz about it" then I think we should simply stop doing QA and instead focus on real bugs and to limit the scope even more focus on things that actually affects real users. Patches still welcome for this issue though! Regards, Andreas Henriksson
