On Wed, 2007-08-29 at 21:22:00 -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote: > severity 432893 important > thanks > > Le mercredi 29 août 2007 12:51, Kurt Roeckx a écrit : > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 09:12:10AM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote: > > > Hi Kurt, > > > I don't necessarily think that this bug is not RC, I just assumed it > > > wasn't. Severity was set to serious indirectly by the cloned bug's > > > severity. While the severity against ghc seemed fine, I think it's > > > unlikely that the dpkg part of the bug is considered serious, now that > > > the report is more than 2 months old and there are no reports of other > > > people experiencing the bug, or reports of the bug with other packages > > > than ghc, which appears fixed. > > > > There were 2 problems in the original bug report, and I consider both > > RC. The ghc one has been fixed/worked around in an other package that > > generated the maintainer scripts. > > > > The dpkg one is one that should be easy to reproduce, I just didn't > > see anybody try or suggest that it's not a problem, or that it has been > > fixed.
> OK. Nevertheless, I'm not convinced that this bug is release-critical, so > I'm downgrading to important again. Sorry but that you are convinced or not does not matter, you should not be changing the severity in the first place for a package you are not maintaining, (you are not part of the release team either, nor the bug submitter). > Do not upgrade the severity to serious again, as this bug is not a > policy violation, unless you have evidence that the dpkg maintainance > team considers it serious. Feel free to ask the maintainers to > upgrade the severity to serious. I'd appreciate if you stop messing with the bug reports status w/o prior consent. Feel free to send comments to the bugs, though. regards, guillem
