On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 09:36:13AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes: > > Oh god no. Please no. Inflating bug severeties just makes it harder to > > do releases; if there's a problem with normal bugs being ignored (and, > > IMO, there is), it needs to be addressed directly, not worked around by > > filing everything as important or higher. > But I think the point here is that the presence of a jillion normal > bugs, unaddressed for years, constitutes a release-critical bug, and > we want some way to filter such packages out of the release. At > least, that's what I thought the idea was about.
No, it's not that simple. dpkg is perfectly releasable right now, in spite of a jillion normal bugs. Heck, now that Wichert and Adam are working on it, it's even an example of a well maintained package. There's a place for bugs like "This unmaintained package is not release quality anymore", but I don't think it's really a good idea for users in general to be filing them: you need to check the package really is unmaintained and make sure that no one else is interested in doing anything about it before you worry about it, at least, which is a job for developers (ideally the -qa team). Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. The daffodils are coming. Are you? linux.conf.au, February 2002, Brisbane, Australia --- http://www.linux.org.au/conf
pgp83o7K7P354.pgp
Description: PGP signature
