severity 650958 important thanks Quoting Sam Hartman (hartm...@mit.edu): > > So far it sounds like this affects one user and is hard for others to > reproduce. > I'm wondering if this is really RC? (I'd like to see the new krb5 get into > testing and samba has to migrate first. I'm not sure what besides this bug is > holding it back, possibly it's moot because of transition issues if there are > library transitions going on.)
Each time I see this bug at the top of my TODO pile, I'm wondering: - is it really RC (very probably affects only one architecture which I more or less consider as a toy architecture nowadays, particularly when it comes at building samba servers)? - is it reproducible on all powerpc systems? - is it really a samba issue? So, I would definitely agree to lower the bug's severity as it indirectly affects krb5. We really don't want to keep such an important package out of testing for a toy architecture and without even knowing if the issue really belongs to our packages. Done.. Thanks, Sam, for bringing me the last argument that convinced me to do what I was about to do since the beginning...:-) Anyway, if one of my comaintainers disagrees, he will have the opportunity to raise the bug's severity again, but then it means he commits himself to investigate the issue (wink).
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
