Bugs tagged edos-relation-warning
Hi Ralf, I wonder why you filed these bugs with severity "normal": http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=edos-relation-warning;users=trei...@debian.org I'd expect that illegal package names and version numbers could break some tools, so I would have filed them as important as least, also since very few packages are affected. Can you explain your reasoning? Is it because you haven't experienced any breakage? regards, Holger, curious signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Bugs tagged edos-relation-warning
Holger Levsen (18/04/2009): > I wonder why you filed these bugs with severity "normal": > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=edos-relation-warning;users=trei...@debian.org Looking at this list: - #468423 and #468425 got minor, rationale was given. - #404339 is normal, but the same rationale would apply. - #285040 still applies, but the Policy (now 5.6.12) still says should. - #518400 probably will go away, but I'd say that providing an illegal package name might not do as much harm as a buggy version number, so it probably wouldn't deserver more than important. > I'd expect that illegal package names and version numbers could break > some tools, so I would have filed them as important as least, also > since very few packages are affected. Those tools should raise appropriate errors, not just “break”. > Can you explain your reasoning? Is it because you haven't experienced > any breakage? Look at the actual bugreports? (Arguing normal vs. important looks like time loss to me, but YMMV.) Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bugs tagged edos-relation-warning
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 09:36:33AM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote: > I wonder why you filed these bugs with severity "normal": > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=edos-relation-warning;users=trei...@debian.org > > I'd expect that illegal package names and version numbers could break some > tools, so I would have filed them as important as least, also since very few > packages are affected. > > Can you explain your reasoning? Is it because you haven't experienced any > breakage? Yes, I haven't seen any tools break because of these bugs. In most cases these are conflicts with very old versions of packages, sometimes from the pre-policy era. -Ralf -- Ralf Treinen Laboratoire Preuves, Programmes et Systèmes Université Paris Diderot, Paris, France. http://www.pps.jussieu.fr/~treinen/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Bugs tagged edos-relation-warning
Hi, On Samstag, 18. April 2009, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > Looking at this list: Thanks for the looking and doing a summary! :-) I just looked at the two open bugs, was in a hurry and so I thought I'll just ask Ralf. Then I decided to mail the list, as the question is probably of wider interest. > - #285040 still applies, but the Policy (now 5.6.12) still says should. Ah, I missed that it's a "should" and not a "must". I would have expected a "must" :-) On Sonntag, 19. April 2009, Ralf Treinen wrote: > Yes, I haven't seen any tools break because of these bugs. Good to know. > In most cases > these are conflicts with very old versions of packages, sometimes > from the pre-policy era. Ah. regards, Holger signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
