Consider tagging #502858 lenny-ignore (was: Re: aptitude: changelog entry malformed)

2008-10-21 Thread Patrick Schoenfeld
(CC'ing debian-release because their input makes sense..) Hi, Y Giridhar Appaji Nag wrote: On 08/10/20 22:04 +1100, Ben Finney said ... Package: aptitude Version: 0.4.11.9-1lenny1 Severity: serious Justification: violates Policy §4.4 This part of the policy is a should and not a must.

Re: Consider tagging #502858 lenny-ignore (was: Re: aptitude: changelog entry malformed)

2008-10-21 Thread Thijs Kinkhorst
On Tue, October 21, 2008 14:48, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote: Y Giridhar Appaji Nag wrote: On 08/10/20 22:04 +1100, Ben Finney said ... Package: aptitude Version: 0.4.11.9-1lenny1 Severity: serious Justification: violates Policy §4.4 This part of the policy is a should and not a must. I'll

Re: Consider tagging #502858 lenny-ignore (was: Re: aptitude: changelog entry malformed)

2008-10-21 Thread Ben Finney
On 21-Oct-2008, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: On Tue, October 21, 2008 14:48, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote: I disagree that the severity should be lowered, because according to the documentation on bugs.d.o this severity is perfectly fine for such kind of issues. However I agree that this issue

Re: Consider tagging #502858 lenny-ignore (was: Re: aptitude: changelog entry malformed)

2008-10-21 Thread Patrick Schoenfeld
Hi, On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 12:08:38AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote: How about just fixing that changelog entry instead of having this discussion? Or am I missing something here that makes the fix not an extremely trivial one? It does seem a trivial fix to me, but only for a specific class