On 11/13/2013 11:25 AM, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
John David Anglin<dave.ang...@bell.net> (2013-11-13):
>Then reportbug should be fixed to not set serious for arches in ports.
>The level is set automatically for any situation where fails to build
>is selected in the report.
reportbug can't know which port is a release architecture in which suite
etc. The reporter is supposed to know that and to follow the RC bug
policy (e.g.http://release.debian.org/wheezy/rc_policy.txt for wheezy).
In the bug report, I selected "5 does-not-build" which is exactly
the circumstances for this bug. I did not select "3 serious". Nor
did I expect that the bug would be treated as "a severe violation
of Debian policy". There is nothing release critical here.
reportbug had access to this info:
Justification: fails to build from source (but built successfully in the
past)
Debian Release: 7.0
APT prefers unreleased
APT policy: (500, 'unreleased'), (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: hppa (parisc64)
This should be enough to make a better assessment of the "virtual
severity" associated with the report. It does have the capability
query upstream.
You set the severity to normal:
6 normal a bug that does not undermine the usability of the whole
package; for example, a problem with a particular
option or
menu item.
That does not match the above description from reportbug as the package is
not usable on hppa.
What's wrong with leaving the severity as "does-not-build"? Package
maintainer
can upgrade if he/she wants.
1.49 built successfully in the past.
Dave
--
John David Anglin dave.ang...@bell.net
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
