>> That is a bit of a stretch. It would not be unusable. > The point of a library is to be used by its dependencies, by the > packages built against it. If it is (not|no longer) usable by these > rdepends, the package is unusable.
That makes sense. >> You can't really say "breaks unrelated packages" either, because they >> would have a direct relation. > I didn't say anything like that. I didn't mean to imply that you did. It was actually something I thought of. Your justification makes more sense. > Policy 8.1 is clear - if the bug documents a crash in an application > that was not present before the library was updated and the library > has not changed the SONAME or package name, the library justifies an > RC bug. Actually, Policy 8.1 doesn't say anything about when to change the soname. Perhaps it should? Thanks for your explanations guys. I get it now. A crash is serious, whether or not the reason is documented in policy. If the crash is the fault of the library, the library gets the RC bug. > The maintainer should not downgrade it and you would be justified > in reinstating that severity. Ok. I also wanted to make it clear that Patrick never tried to downgrade the bug. I just wanted to be prepared in case some maintainer I ever need to deal with in the future did. -Brandon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
