Bug#128444: This *is* serious

2002-01-15 Thread Thomas Bushnell, BSG
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 severity 128444 serious
 thanks
 
 In practice this is serious. I'll put together a fix.

in practice.  No.  It doesn't violate policy.  Maybe it should, but
it doesn't.  Of course, it's fine to fix it.  But there is no rule
that packages must not depend on such things.




Bug#128444: This *is* serious

2002-01-15 Thread Colin Watson
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 02:27:07PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
 Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  severity 128444 serious
  thanks
  
  In practice this is serious. I'll put together a fix.
 
 in practice.  No.  It doesn't violate policy.  Maybe it should, but
 it doesn't.  Of course, it's fine to fix it.  But there is no rule
 that packages must not depend on such things.

Sometimes actually getting things working is more important than
worrying about which rules they violate, and I'm volunteering to get
things working. In any case, the serious severity is also for in the
package maintainer's opinion, makes the package unsuitable for release,
and in this package maintainer's opinion a package that can't be built
by autobuilders is unsuitable.

-- 
Colin Watson  [EMAIL PROTECTED]