>>>>> "Johannes" == Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues <jo...@debian.org> writes:
>> also because technically it's the right decision from the release
>> team. these bugs are *currently*, in real life, merely cosmetic.
Johannes> I disagree they are cosmetic or otherwise I would not've
Johannes> encountered them in my own work in Debian. But lets assume
Johannes> that you mean that they are only cosmetic as far as what
Johannes> the buildds do are concerned. In that case, would you
Johannes> rather be in favour of first changing debootstrap to not
Johannes> include Priority:required anymore in the buildd variant
Johannes> and only *then* raise their severity because only then an
Johannes> upload would really fail on the buildds? My idea was to do
Johannes> it the other way round but as said above this is of course
Johannes> up to the release team.
We normally do it the other way around.
For example in a transition, often bugs start as important when they
will ftbfs in the future.
Then when the transitioning software hits unstable, we mark them
serious.
I understand it's more complex here because on some non-buildd
environments these packages already ftbfs.
But I do think it would be better to merge into debootstrap and then
upgrade the severity of the bugs.
I agree with Holger here.
I note that none of us are on the release team.
