On Tue, May 20 2014, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Arto Jantunen writes:
>
>> Because a package that doesn't work at all (and thus breaks rdeps) isn't
>> as broken as a package that wipes the root fs on installation.
>
> Note that the latter breaks the whole system, and hence is critical
> regardless of
Arto Jantunen writes:
> Because a package that doesn't work at all (and thus breaks rdeps) isn't
> as broken as a package that wipes the root fs on installation.
Note that the latter breaks the whole system, and hence is critical
regardless of this distinction.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org
Ian Jackson writes:
> Don Armstrong writes:
>> I'm OK with either adding additional clarification or adopting this
>> language.
> I agree with Manoj's point about the gap between Russ's wording and
> the current one.
I guess I'm still failing to understand why that gap is important. Maybe
some
Clint Adams writes:
> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 01:39:39PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
>> Or simply add a footnote stating that two packages are NOT unrelated
>> if one depends on the other.
>
> Could someone explain why this is a useful distinction?
Because a package that doesn't work at all (
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 01:39:39PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Or simply add a footnote stating that two packages are NOT unrelated
> if one depends on the other.
Could someone explain why this is a useful distinction?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with
Hi,
Ian Jackson:
> People often won't read a footnote unless they
> are tripped up by something in the main text.
>
I have to agree.
s/footnote/remark/ (in the main text), then.
--
-- Matthias Urlichs
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsub
Matthias Urlichs writes ("Re: Redefining critical bug severity (was: how to
deal with a missed so bump already uploaded ?)"):
> Ian Jackson:
> > Would adding "totally" (or "utterly") before "unrelated" help perhaps ?
>
> Or simply add a fo
Hi,
Ian Jackson:
> Would adding "totally" (or "utterly") before "unrelated" help perhaps ?
>
Or simply add a footnote stating that two packages are NOT unrelated
if one depends on the other.
--
-- Matthias Urlichs
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subje
Don Armstrong writes ("Re: Redefining critical bug severity (was: how to deal
with a missed so bump already uploaded ?)"):
> I'm OK with either adding additional clarification or adopting this
> language.
I agree with Manoj's point about the gap between Russ's word
On Sat, 17 May 2014, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I think defining critical as:
>
> makes the entire system unusable, or causes serious data loss, or
> introduces a security hole on systems where you install the package
>
> is closer to how we actually use the severity, and would avoid some of
>
On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 08:46:20AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> The confusion seems to always be around the "unrelated software" part of
> that definition. The intended meaning is completely unrelated software on
> the system, indicating a package that's mangling the system in some
> fundamental w
On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 01:02:08PM -0700, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Over the years, I've seen endless confusion about the current definition
> > of a critical bug severity:
Totally agree.
> > makes unrelated software on the system (or the whole system) break, or
> > causes serious data l
On Sat, May 17 2014, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Over the years, I've seen endless confusion about the current definition
> of a critical bug severity:
> makes unrelated software on the system (or the whole system) break, or
> causes serious data loss, or introduces a security hole on systems
>
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Over the years, I've seen endless confusion about the current definition
> of a critical bug severity:
>
> makes unrelated software on the system (or the whole system) break, or
> causes serious data loss, or introduces a security hole on systems
> where you insta
Julien Cristau writes:
> On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 07:33:04 +0200, Tobias Frost wrote:
>> IMHO the severity should be raised to critical as it breaks unrelated
>> software.
> Reverse dependencies are anything but unrelated.
Over the years, I've seen endless confusion about the current definition
15 matches
Mail list logo
