On Sat, Apr 27, 2002 at 01:34:26AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > Currently it says: > > serious > is a severe violation of Debian policy (that is, it violates a > "must" or "required" directive), or, in the package > maintainer's opinion, makes the package unsuitable for > release. > > How about: > > serious > is a severe violation of Debian policy or any other problem, > which makes the package unsuitable for release. > > This definition makes `serious' correspond identically to the > package's suitability for release. It avoids defining `severe' > violation of policy as a violation of a `must'; that seems to me to be > the core error. This change would avoid violations of exceptionless > policies (which are of course always bugs) always being treated as > release critical even if they're unimportant. > > If you and Anthony agree then maybe we should see if we can get that > changed. If you disagree I'm sure you'll let us know :-).
I would not have a problem with this. I would think that any Debian Policy "must" or "required" violation that was not "serious" would be "important", but I don't insist on tying that opinion to the one you expressed. It would just be my way of ackowledging that that package maintainers do generally need to give more priority to their policy violations than a plain vanilla bug. -- G. Branden Robinson | Debian GNU/Linux | If existence exists, [EMAIL PROTECTED] | why create a creator? http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
pgpg4MVCXHTXU.pgp
Description: PGP signature
