On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:02:31 +0100, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Bug mass filling"):
>> On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:18:20 +0100, Ian Jackson
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > There are two different and orth
Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Bug mass filling"):
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:18:20 +0100, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > There are two different and orthogonal properties of a policy
> > requirement:
> > 1. [...]
> > [and]
> > 2. I
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 09:31:42 +0200, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> * Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061024 23:53]:
>> If you are aware of issues that are violations of muSt directives
>> that are never going to be RC, there should be a bug opened on
>> policy with severity impor
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 01:48:02AM -0400, Kevin Mark wrote:
> Are you suggesting that each package can have a related list of
> non-transient bugs that should be marked (with a new tags called )
> ignore-this-policy-violation where this can be attached to any package
> related bug for any length of
* Frank Küster ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061025 09:49]:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:15:55 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > said:
> >> Is the word "generally" here an error? I read this as implying the
> >> normal meaning of "should" -- that
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 16:04:54 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> Because your choice of mapping blurs the distinction between
>> one-time exceptions for RCness (e.g., due to GRs for DFSG issues),
>> vs. policy violations that the rele
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:15:55 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Is the word "generally" here an error? I read this as implying the
>> normal meaning of "should" -- that not everything which violates a
>> "should" mandate is a bug.
>
>
* Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061024 23:53]:
> If you are aware of issues that are violations of muSt
> directives that are never going to be RC, there should be a bug
> opened on policy with severity important for every one of them.
I hope to have time post-etch-release to do
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 01:48:02AM -0400, Kevin Mark wrote:
> So certain bugs can be marked $STABLE-ignore to allow transient rc
> issues to be ignored for a release and will become no-ops after release.
> Are you suggesting that each package can have a related list of
> non-transient bugs that sho
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 04:04:54PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 05:00:45PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > > Well, I did say that it was a very rough draft. ;)
>
> > > Second try:
> > > "... However, this is not a direct mapping, and the release
> > > managers dete
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:15:55 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 06:48:10PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >> If you are aware of issues that are violations of muSt
>> >> directives that are never going to be RC, there should be a bug
>> >> opened on polic
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 18:36:43 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 04:36:52PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Since we already feel that our RM's are overworked (hence dunc-tank
>> and payment schemes), I strongly suggest we not add to the RM's
>> burdens any
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 04:36:52PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Since we already feel that our RM's are overworked (hence
> dunc-tank and payment schemes), I strongly suggest we not add to the
> RM's burdens any more than we have to.
This is a laughable suggestion, given that the RMs
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 06:48:10PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> If you are aware of issues that are violations of muSt directives
> >> that are never going to be RC, there should be a bug opened on
> >> policy with severity important for every one of them.
> > Why? If these issues are down
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:00:45 -0500, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 13:49:01 -0400, Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said:
>> On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 13:46:23 -0500, Manoj Srivastava
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: [...]
and for policy:
These classifications
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 16:18:11 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 04:51:08PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > * Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061023 20:14]:
>> >> Strawman. No one is proosing that; we already have a mechanism
>> >> for making seriou
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 16:04:54 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 05:00:45PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > Well, I did say that it was a very rough draft. ;)
>> > Second try:
>> > "... However, this is not a direct mapping, and the release
>> > mana
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 04:51:08PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > * Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061023 20:14]:
> >> Strawman. No one is proosing that; we already have a mechanism for
> >> making serious bugs non-RC (etch-ignore tags).
> > Etch-ignore tags are usually used for issues
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 05:00:45PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Well, I did say that it was a very rough draft. ;)
> > Second try:
> > "... However, this is not a direct mapping, and the release
> > managers determine the severity of each violation."
> Direct mapping of *WHAT*?
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 13:49:01 -0400, Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 13:46:23 -0500, Manoj Srivastava
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: [...]
>>> and for policy:
>>> These classifications are roughly equivalent to the bug severities
>>> serious (for must or required directi
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 07:21:35 +0200, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> * Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061023 20:14]:
>> Strawman. No one is proosing that; we already have a mechanism for
>> making serious bugs non-RC (etch-ignore tags).
> Etch-ignore tags are usually used for iss
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:18:20 +0100, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Bug mass filling"):
>> On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 17:18:41 -0700, Steve Langasek
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > When there are issues addressed in
Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Bug mass filling"):
> On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 17:18:41 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > When there are issues addressed in policy that are black-and-white
> > where all violations of the policy requirement are defini
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 13:46:23 -0500, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
[...]
>> and for policy:
>> These classifications are roughly equivalent to the bug severities
>> serious (for must or required directive violations), minor, normal or
>> important (for should or recommended directive
* Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061023 20:14]:
> Strawman. No one is proosing that; we already have a mechanism
> for making serious bugs non-RC (etch-ignore tags).
Etch-ignore tags are usually used for issues where we expect them to be
RC after etch releases. If we think an issue
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 12:30:20 -0400, Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 15:40:28 -0500, Manoj Srivastava
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Gee. Don't we already have something very like this?
>> These classifications are roughly equivalent to the bug severities
>> _serious_
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 12:05:09 +0200, Gabor Gombas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sun, Oct 22, 2006 at 10:48:26PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I don't think using any non-POSIX feature should be a policy
>> violation, probably. There are some that are in such widespread
>> use and are supported b
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 22:48:26 -0700, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I personally think that maintainer scripts should allow for /bin/sh
>> to be not bash; or there should be documentation to the effect that
>> non bash /bin/sh is not suppor
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 15:40:28 -0500, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Gee. Don't we already have something very like this?
> These classifications are roughly equivalent to the bug
> severities _serious_ (for _must_ or _required_ directive violations),
> _minor_, _normal_
Gabor Gombas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How about instead of speaking about POSIX, policy should just list the
> shells that are officially supported as /bin/sh? There is no need
> listing every shell, just a representative subset: bash (obviously),
> dash (it's popular) and an other "minimalis
On Sun October 22 2006 23:22, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I still think we should go for quality of implementation.
>
> I also seem to be a minority in this regard.
I sincerely hope not.
> If the project feels that we should downgrade policy not to
> set our maintainer scri
On Sun, Oct 22, 2006 at 10:48:26PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I don't think using any non-POSIX feature should be a policy violation,
> probably. There are some that are in such widespread use and are
> supported by all shells that weren't written specifically as test suites
> that I think it's
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I personally think that maintainer scripts should allow for
> /bin/sh to be not bash; or there should be documentation to the
> effect that non bash /bin/sh is not supported.
People actually use non-bash shells as /bin/sh and I get real bug
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 12:24:29 +1000, Anthony Towns
said:
> On Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 07:39:47PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > Is a bashism in a /bin/sh script a normal bug ("should only use
>> > POSIX features"), or a RC bug ("the appropriate shell bust be
>> > specified")? It's much easier
On Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 07:39:47PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Is a bashism in a /bin/sh script a normal bug ("should only use
> > POSIX features"), or a RC bug ("the appropriate shell bust be
> > specified")? It's much easier to work out by just looking at the
> > rc_policy text file mainta
(Yes, I'm on vacation, and really am still on vacation, but I had a brief
check-in moment and happened to see this thread. Note that I probably
won't see responses, unless I get to them tomorrow night, until the
beginning of November.)
Aurelien Jarno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have just run
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 09:28:54 +1000, Anthony Towns
said:
> On Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 03:40:28PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Gee. Don't we already have something very like this?
>> These classifications are roughly equivalent to the bug severities
>> _serious_ (for _must_ or _required_ direc
On Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 03:40:28PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Gee. Don't we already have something very like this?
> These classifications are roughly equivalent to the bug severities
> _serious_ (for _must_ or _required_ directive violations), _minor_,
> _normal_ or
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Don Armstrong]
> > Well, once I wake up a bit, you'll be able to go:
> >
> > Package: foopkg
> > User: username
> > Usertags: fooblehtag,bartag
> >
> > [But it won't work for setting multiple users... to do that, you'll
> > have to use control.]
>
On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 17:18:41 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 05:37:36PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > That's not correct. [serious, grave, and critical] are the
>> > "release critical" severities, though some release critical
>> > issues won't be fi
[Don Armstrong]
> Well, once I wake up a bit, you'll be able to go:
>
> Package: foopkg
> User: username
> Usertags: fooblehtag,bartag
>
> [But it won't work for setting multiple users... to do that, you'll
> have to use control.]
This is even better. Is there a web page documenting this new
fea
Anthony Towns wrote:
> Please hold off on filing them for a few days, so I can add
> usertag-on-submit support to debbugs, so that it should be possible to
> automatically track this stuff, and easily avoid filing duplicate bugs
> if they're not fixed the next time bugs get filed.
Thanks, AJ. That
Miriam Ruiz wrote:
> Why don't we all try to calm down and get less paranoid?
I hope there are big Finnish saunas in Edinburgh.
I think we all need to gather for a hot sauna next DebConf.
We should change this "you can't flame people you have had sauna with"
to "you can't flame me until you've h
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061021 09:54]:
> > On Sat, 21 Oct 2006, Christian Perrier wrote:
> > > > Please hold off on filing them for a few days, so I can add
> > > > usertag-on-submit support to debbugs, so that it should be possible to
> > >
* Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061021 09:54]:
> On Sat, 21 Oct 2006, Christian Perrier wrote:
> > > Please hold off on filing them for a few days, so I can add
> > > usertag-on-submit support to debbugs, so that it should be possible to
> > ^^
> >
> > *that* will be a g
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006, Christian Perrier wrote:
> > Please hold off on filing them for a few days, so I can add
> > usertag-on-submit support to debbugs, so that it should be possible to
> ^^
>
> *that* will be a great feature..:)
This should "in theory" be working now.
Usert
> Please hold off on filing them for a few days, so I can add
> usertag-on-submit support to debbugs, so that it should be possible to
^^
*that* will be a great feature..:)
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 05:18:41PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 05:37:36PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > > That's not correct. [serious, grave, and critical] are the "release
> > > critical" severities, though some release critical issues won't be
> > > fixed for any
On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 05:37:36PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > That's not correct. [serious, grave, and critical] are the "release
> > critical" severities, though some release critical issues won't be
> > fixed for any given release, due to either being not known about or
> > understood (ie
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 06:27:24 +1000, Anthony Towns
said:
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 04:06:05AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > Even then, it's only "serious" if it violates the release policy
>> > [http://release.debian.org/etch_rc_policy.txt]. Hence the reason
>> > that
>> No. A bug may be s
* Aurelien Jarno ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061021 00:37]:
> Anthony Towns a écrit :
> >On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 03:06:04PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> >>Maybe some errors (E:) of lintian could be changed to critical (C:) and
> >>uploads containing such critical errors be refused by dak? What do you
>
Anthony Towns a écrit :
On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 03:06:04PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
Maybe some errors (E:) of lintian could be changed to critical (C:) and
uploads containing such critical errors be refused by dak? What do you
think?
AFAIK dak doesn't support this? Does "C:" exist?
No AF
On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 03:06:04PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Maybe some errors (E:) of lintian could be changed to critical (C:) and
> uploads containing such critical errors be refused by dak? What do you
> think?
AFAIK dak doesn't support this? Does "C:" exist?
> Among all of the bugs repo
On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 04:06:05AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Even then, it's only "serious" if it violates the release policy
> > [http://release.debian.org/etch_rc_policy.txt]. Hence the reason
> > that
> No. A bug may be serious and yet not RC, as I understand it.
That's not cor
Why don't we all try to calm down and get less paranoid?
I don't think anyone's trying to piss off anyone, so I think we should all try
to take it less personal. We probably all have different priorities, different
goals and different ideas on how to achieve them, and I don't think anyone's
making
On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 18:49:09 +0100, Adam D Barratt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Thu, 2006-10-19 at 10:00 -0700, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
>> Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
>>
>> > Doesn't policy violation warrant Critical severity?
>>
>> No, it "only" warrants the lowest RC severity, serious [0],
On 10/19/06, Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Waw, actually, i was trying to be less aggressive...
Anyways, since I'm too pissed and since I see no reason to put myself in
that mood any further, I'm taking a few days off Debian, which means my
current work on seamonkey^Hiceape will be on h
On Thu, 19 Oct 2006, Kevin Mark wrote:
> DD's trying to use Debian policy as a guide to make all packages
> pass policy requirement. Is this not what they are tasked to do?
There's nothing wrong with these goals. Indeed, I'm sure no one would
object to patches and bugs being filed to fix these pol
On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 10:52:25PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 10:37:38PM +0200, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > * Mike Hommey ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061019 22:29]:
> > > [another agression]
> Waw, actually, i was trying to be less aggressive...
This is a ver
On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 10:37:38PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Mike Hommey ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061019 22:29]:
> > [another agression]
>
> Sorry, but enough is enough. I'm fed up about your sudden agressions
> towards me for no reason at all. Welcome to my killfile.
>
>
Hi Andi,
from my pers
On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 10:37:38PM +0200, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> * Mike Hommey ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061019 22:29]:
> > [another agression]
Waw, actually, i was trying to be less aggressive...
Anyways, since I'm too pissed and since I see no reason to put myself in
that mood a
Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Be aware that, even if you don't like it, this looks like you bend the
> rules so that it doesn't alter the release plan.
> Be also aware that too much bending the rules makes them useless.
Don't try to bend the rules, it's impossible. Instead, only realiz
Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> So, what does the Etch RC policy remove from the bugs.d.o description?
>
> 'is a severe violation of Debian policy (roughly, it violates a "must" or
> "required" directive), or'
Perhaps you should concentrate on the word "roughly" there. What
constitut
Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 10:20:46PM +0200, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> * Mike Hommey ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061019 22:09]:
>> > Where does it say the scope for 4. Autobuilding is "buildds must not
>> > fail" ?
>>
>> There are always bugs in
* Mike Hommey ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061019 22:29]:
> [another agression]
Sorry, but enough is enough. I'm fed up about your sudden agressions
towards me for no reason at all. Welcome to my killfile.
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wi
On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 10:20:46PM +0200, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> * Mike Hommey ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061019 22:09]:
> > Where does it say the scope for 4. Autobuilding is "buildds must not
> > fail" ?
>
> There are always bugs in any document.
Be aware that, even if you don't
On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 10:15:16PM +0200, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> * Mike Hommey ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061019 22:06]:
> > That was not a link before it was changed before sarge release, in July
> > 2004.
>
> The link was added later because people were barking around. The meaning
* Mike Hommey ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061019 22:09]:
> Where does it say the scope for 4. Autobuilding is "buildds must not
> fail" ?
There are always bugs in any document.
For sarge, we e.g. sarge-ignored some MTAs which didn't provide -bs,
though LSB requires that. Now, we adjusted the policy to m
* Mike Hommey ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061019 22:06]:
> That was not a link before it was changed before sarge release, in July
> 2004.
The link was added later because people were barking around. The meaning
was always the same.
Anyways, July 2004 is a *bit* history now, don't you think so?
> So, w
On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 09:56:37PM +0200, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> * Aurelien Jarno ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061019 21:31]:
> > Andreas Barth a écrit :
> > >A violation of the parts of the debian policy as listed on
> > >http://release.debian.org/etch_rc_policy.txt is serious level (
On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 03:53:56PM -0400, Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> * Andreas Barth ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > * Mike Hommey ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061019 21:14]:
> > > On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 09:06:42PM +0200, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL
> > > PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > * Mike Hommey
On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 09:35:38PM +0200, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> But I need to admit that I get sick, seriously sick. If someone doesn't
> agree with something, he just says "you do it wrong just for release of
> etch on $date". I really hate that. Especially when it's about th
* Aurelien Jarno ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061019 21:31]:
> Andreas Barth a écrit :
> >A violation of the parts of the debian policy as listed on
> >http://release.debian.org/etch_rc_policy.txt is serious level (that
> >should be the same as the must-directives in policy, but - well, I hope
> >that I ha
* Andreas Barth ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> * Mike Hommey ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061019 21:14]:
> > On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 09:06:42PM +0200, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > * Mike Hommey ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061019 20:42]:
> > > > Note how subtly the Etch RC policy removes the f
* Mike Hommey ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061019 21:25]:
> On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 09:17:38PM +0200, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > * Mike Hommey ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061019 21:14]:
> > > On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 09:06:42PM +0200, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL
> > > PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > * M
Andreas Barth a écrit :
A violation of the parts of the debian policy as listed on
http://release.debian.org/etch_rc_policy.txt is serious level (that
should be the same as the must-directives in policy, but - well, I hope
that I have finally time post-etch to sync that finally).
Any other polic
On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 09:17:38PM +0200, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> * Mike Hommey ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061019 21:14]:
> > On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 09:06:42PM +0200, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > * Mike Hommey ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061019 20:42]:
> > > > Note ho
* Mike Hommey ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061019 21:14]:
> On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 09:06:42PM +0200, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > * Mike Hommey ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061019 20:42]:
> > > Note how subtly the Etch RC policy removes the first alternative of the
> > > serious bug description
On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 09:06:42PM +0200, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> * Mike Hommey ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061019 20:42]:
> > Note how subtly the Etch RC policy removes the first alternative of the
> > serious bug description...
>
> Which do you mean? Please read the Etch RC policy.
* Mike Hommey ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061019 20:42]:
> Note how subtly the Etch RC policy removes the first alternative of the
> serious bug description...
Which do you mean? Please read the Etch RC policy. It tells:
| In addition to the issues listed in this document, an issue is release
| critical
On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 11:29:38AM -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 07:51:19PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 07:36:27PM +0200, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > > Doesn't policy violation warrant Critical severity?
On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 07:51:19PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 07:36:27PM +0200, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > Doesn't policy violation warrant Critical severity?
> > No. Please see the top of http://release.debian.org/etch_rc_policy.txt
> > for which bu
On Thu, 2006-10-19 at 10:00 -0700, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
> Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
>
> > Doesn't policy violation warrant Critical severity?
>
> No, it "only" warrants the lowest RC severity, serious [0], unless the
> bug in addition makes the package or other software (mostly) unusable,
>
On Thu, 2006-10-19 at 19:51 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 07:36:27PM +0200, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > Doesn't policy violation warrant Critical severity?
> >
> > No. Please see the top of http://release.debian.org/etch_rc_policy.txt
> > for which bugs
On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 07:01:20PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Thursday 19 October 2006 18:45, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> > If no problem is caused by it, I believe 'normal' or even 'wishlist'
> > severity is the proper severity to use.
> s/wishlist/minor/
> It _is_ a bug after all.
s/minor/i
On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 07:36:27PM +0200, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > Doesn't policy violation warrant Critical severity?
>
> No. Please see the top of http://release.debian.org/etch_rc_policy.txt
> for which bugs are critical, grave and serious.
That is irrelevant for the sever
* Aurelien Jarno ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061019 15:06]:
> Among all of the bugs reported by lintian, one concerns a lot of
> packages, the presence of the clean, binary, binary-arch, binary-indep
> and build targets. This is required by both the section 4.9 of the
> policy and the Etch release standa
* Tshepang Lekhonkhobe ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061019 18:09]:
> On 10/19/06, Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >[Aurelien Jarno]
> >> I have just run lintian on all the archive (amd64) for both binaries and
> >> sources, and the results are a bit scary. It looks like a lot of
> >> m
On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 06:45:53PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> Well, policy isn't a stick to beat other maintainers with, it is a
> tool to make sure our packages are well integrated and work properly.
> Thus, policy issues are not problems by themselves, they are policy
> issues because th
On Thursday 19 October 2006 18:45, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> If no problem is caused by it, I believe 'normal' or even 'wishlist'
> severity is the proper severity to use.
s/wishlist/minor/
It _is_ a bug after all.
pgp8CuxfBlHbn.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
> Doesn't policy violation warrant Critical severity?
No, it "only" warrants the lowest RC severity, serious [0], unless the
bug in addition makes the package or other software (mostly) unusable,
causes data loss, or introduces a security hole.
[0] http://www.debian.o
[Tshepang Lekhonkhobe]
> Doesn't policy violation warrant Critical severity?
Well, policy isn't a stick to beat other maintainers with, it is a
tool to make sure our packages are well integrated and work properly.
Thus, policy issues are not problems by themselves, they are policy
issues because
On 10/19/06, Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[Aurelien Jarno]
> I have just run lintian on all the archive (amd64) for both binaries and
> sources, and the results are a bit scary. It looks like a lot of
> maintainers are uploading their packages, and don't really care with the
>
[Aurelien Jarno]
> I have just run lintian on all the archive (amd64) for both binaries and
> sources, and the results are a bit scary. It looks like a lot of
> maintainers are uploading their packages, and don't really care with the
> policy.
What is the technical problem triggered by the pack
Hi all,
I have just run lintian on all the archive (amd64) for both binaries and
sources, and the results are a bit scary. It looks like a lot of
maintainers are uploading their packages, and don't really care with the
policy.
Maybe some errors (E:) of lintian could be changed to critical (C:)
95 matches
Mail list logo
