On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 09:28:54 +1000, Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> said:
> On Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 03:40:28PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> Gee. Don't we already have something very like this? >> These classifications are roughly equivalent to the bug severities >> _serious_ (for _must_ or _required_ directive violations), _minor_, >> _normal_ or _important_ (for _should_ or _recommended_ directive >> violations) and _wishlist_ (for _optional_ items). [2] > Those classifications haven't been monitored or updated, so no, we > don't. Yes, we do. You seem to be conflating the severity and RC-ness of a bug -- bugs have severities, and the release team decides which bugs are RC or not. > IIRC that changed pretty soon after woody's release, with the > creation of a specific list of RC criteria maintained by the release > team. The woody policy addenda [0], for instance, said: > Bashisms generally aren't release-critical, even when they're > in scripts marked #!/bin/sh. They may be release-critical if > their breakage causes other problems that are release-critical > if they ever happen. > In contrast, policy still states: > Thus, shell scripts specifying `/bin/sh' as interpreter should > only use POSIX features. If a script requires non-POSIX > features from the shell interpreter, the appropriate shell must > be specified in the first line of the script (e.g., > `#!/bin/bash') > Is a bashism in a /bin/sh script a normal bug ("should only use > POSIX features"), or a RC bug ("the appropriate shell bust be > specified")? It's much easier to work out by just looking at the > rc_policy text file maintained by the RM team [1]. Neither. It is a non RC serious bug. manoj -- Quod erat demonstrandum. [Thus it is proven. For those who wondered WTF QED means.] Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]