On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 07:28:25AM +0100, Tobias Frost wrote:
> > I've asked in #debian-ftp to avoid me raising libxapian22's priority
> > and then discovering they'd prefer to demote aptitude instead.
>
> thanks for feedback. I'm not clear about your chatt.. ftpmaster sees
> that as a bug in aptitude and likes to demote aptidue from *required*
> to *optional*?
I don't know - they have not yet responded.
If I uploaded a changed libxapian22 and then asked ftpmaster to update
the overrides to match, they might tell me they think aptitude should
change, and then I would have to reupload to undo the change I had made.
It just seems more sensible to ask first.
> If so, please free to reassign it to aptitude. (and keeping serious as
> it affects a "must" clause of the policy)
I will if the answer is that aptitude should change.
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 07:46:05AM +0100, Tobias Frost wrote:
> (sorry, hitted send accidentially; I just wanted to comment my view on
> the policy.)
>
> > While this certainly needs addressing, and I'm fine with changing
> > libxapian22 if that's what if preferred, policy doesn't appear to
> > justify filing this as RC in libxapian22 - "[aptitude] must not depend
> > on packages with lower priority values" would justify this being RC in
> > aptitude, but not in the dependent package(s).
>
> Well, I read the second sentence of the policy that way that it also can
> be applied to the dependent packages, that the policy don't care which
> prioirties are changes, unless one of the priorities will be changed.
> And that implies to me that this bug can be also on the dependent
> package, and why should be severity different then?
Because aptitude is violating a "must" in policy, while libxapian22
isn't. Why should the severity necessarily be the same in each case?
I'll also note that arguing for inflated severity rarely get bugs fixed
more quickly.
Cheers,
Olly
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
