On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 10:27:20PM +0100, Daniel Gröber wrote: > On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 07:24:49PM +0000, Holger Levsen wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 07:04:01PM +0100, Daniel Gröber wrote: > > > That's fine, but in that case this fact should be documented instead no? > > > Right now there's confusion across the docs what criticality levels are > > > available. Britney.conf and d-policy mention critical/emergency but > > > nothing > > > else even acknowledges they exist which is just confusing. > > > > I believe Debian policy should be changed then and not mention a severity > > which is not used in practice. > > Easier said than done. I see debian-policy@d.o is already CCed on this bug > so, opinions? > > Doesn't policy document the reality that these urgency values are in fact > usable? Do you not agree that britney does in fact support these? If I go > ahead and upload a package with urgency=critical will this be REJECTed by > ftp-master?
Theses urgency values are historical. Their current behaviour is not defined. A long time ago in a distro not far away, packages for non-i386 were built manually by porters that used the urgency to decide which packages to build first. I do not think this is still the case, except that the security queue is build first by the autobuilders. Cheers, -- Bill. <ballo...@debian.org> Imagine a large red swirl here.
