Hello, On Sun 16 Sep 2018 at 08:40PM +0200, Paul Gevers wrote:
> Dear Sean, > > On 16-09-18 20:30, Sean Whitton wrote: >> Paul: does preventing regressions in testing take precedence? > > Normally, yes temporarily (we are not blocking yet), but ghostscript was > uploaded with urgency high. That means that regressions are ignored and > without an RC bug, ghostscript will migrate to testing tomorrow (if my > counting is correct). Thanks. I should have been clearer that I was asking about /all/ regressions in testing, rather than just autopkgtests. >> If so, >> this bug should be reassigned to ghostscript and raised to RC severity. > > I don't follow what you mean by this sentence. I meant that if preventing a test suite failure in testing took priority, we would want to stop ghostscript from migrating. Anyway, it's moot. > ocrmypdf can stay in testing as long as it doesn't have an RC bug itself. > > So just to make it clear: if this change making ocrmypdf totally > unusable and you still want ghostscript to migrate to testing to fix > multiple CVE's, than assigning this bug to ocrmypdf and raising it to RC > level will start the autoremoval process. If you think it is worth > searching for a solution in ghostscript to avoid it breaking ocrmypdf, > than reassign this bug to ghostscript and raise the severity to RC level > to avoid migration. Right. I don't know if OCRmyPDF in testing counts as RC-buggy right now, because I don't know the ramifications of the GhostScript changes; I'm going to wait on upstream. -- Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
