On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 09:37:33PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote: > > There's nothing in the constitution that says RMs are *bound* by policy's > > definition of what is or isn't a release-critical bug, either.
> Neither there's something there that says RM are allowed to ignore the policy. But the burden of proof isn't on me here; you're the one trying to assert that there's something *wrong* with what the RMs are doing. > > Anyway, it doesn't make sense to make POSIX sh an RC requirement for etch at > > this stage of the release cycle, but I would be in favor of the release team > > endorsing 0-day NMUs for any such bugs. I'll discuss this with Andi. > If the POSIX sh affect the usability of the package it's a RC > bug. It'll make the package useless to people using dash as shell, for > example. See bellow: > ,----[ http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer.en.html#severities ] > | grave > | makes the package in question unusable or mostly so, or causes > | data loss, or introduces a security hole allowing access to the > | accounts of users who use the package. > `---- "Unusable or mostly so" does not mean "unusable in select, minority configurations explicitly enabled by the user." dash as /bin/sh is a corner case, not the common case; which means such bugs do not in fact meet the definition of "grave". They are nevertheless *significant* bugs in those packages (one might even call them, er... "important" bugs), and Andi has agreed with me that these are good candidates for 0-day NMUs, so this will be mentioned in an upcoming mail to d-d-a. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
