Colin Phipps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 11:08:12AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: >> Le Wed, May 16, 2001 at 10:53:17AM +0200, Adrian Bunk ?crivait: >> > Sorry, but these are "serious" bugs. We want to have /usr/doc symlinks for >> > _all_ our packages in woody. >> >> I'm against submitting more & more RC bugs that are not worth it >> considering that we don't have the resources available to fix them. > >It may take time, but these bugs are considered serious enough to warrant >delaying a release to fix them. > >> Furthermore all those RC bugs that won't get fixed will just be useful >> to prevent more packages from sid to get into testing. > >If you file against the versions in testing, then they should not count against >the sid version so ought not to affect packages getting into testing. >(That's my understanding, anyway)
No, the bug tracking system takes no account of versions. Pseudo-headers other than Package:, Severity:, and Tags: are purely informational. The best that the testing scripts can do is make a few guesses based on the newest version available at the time the bugs were filed. >> Feel free to ask the maintainer to update their packages but don't submit >> them as RC bugs. > >If you feel /usr/doc/ symlinks aren't release critical, file the appropriate >policy ammendment. Personally I won't downgrade RC bugs that have been filed about it, but nor will I worry too much about filing them myself. Considering that the symlinks will go away in a release or two's time, it's a much lower priority than getting the last few packages moved to /usr/share/doc at all. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
