Jeremy Bícha <jeremy.bi...@canonical.com> writes: > Control: severity -1 serious > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 5:10 PM Simon Josefsson <si...@josefsson.org> wrote: >> >> severity 1061185 important >> thanks >> >> I'm downgrading this due to lack of explanation what is the 'serious' >> severity level problem. >> >> /Simon >> >> Simon Josefsson <si...@josefsson.org> writes: >> >> > Hi! You re-opened this ITP bug and changed the title to 'apt-verify: >> > unsupportable' and made it a RC bug. It is not clear to me what makes >> > you believe this is a serious bug in this package, since you gave no >> > justification. Can you clarify what your actionable concerns are? > > I apologize for not replying sooner. > > apt-verify has a defacto RC bug or equivalent because apt has > Conflicts: apt-verify. > > Notice how it is unable to migrate to Testing because of the piuparts > regression: https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/apt-verify > > I am bumping the severity back to serious just so that someone who > visits that tracker page (or the similar excuses pages) has a handy > link to more explanation why this package is unable to migrate to > Testing. There is history in previous comments to this bug. I am not > personally involved in apt maintenance or deciding whether there > should or shouldn't be a Conflicts here.
I don't understand this -- why is it a RC bug if the apt maintainers declare a Conflicts with a package? Where in the debian policies do you find support for that view? It would be nice to resolve the Conflicts in apt too, as an orthogonal but related issue, but I've been equally unable to understand what actionable change is requested in 'apt-verify'. Could we try to have a discussion about this? /Simon
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
