severity 457177 serious thanks * Jonas Smedegaard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [071221 19:54]: > On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 08:11:21PM +0100, maximilian attems wrote: > >i hate myself inflated bugs, but if you had have a look at > >the cited points you'd agree on the severity. > > We do not (in this bugreport) have a dispute over severity of those bugs > that you listed. I did not even comment on them (as you seem well aware) > but instead requested that you refer to the bugreports, as discussing > severity of each bug is best done at those other bugreports. > > Our disagreement here is on severity of *this* bug, which I interpret as > a metabug claiming that "this package generally have too many too severe > bugs". Please correct me if I somehow misunderstood the nature of the > bug raised with this bugreport.
Unfortunatly, I have to agree from a release team POV (i.e. speaking with my Release Manager hat on) with maks on the general status of the package, especially as maks spoke with his kernel arch maintainer hat on (so his remarks shouldn't be lightly waived away). One might discuss about the adequate severity of the individual bugs, but they together makes this package RC buggy. (Perhaps even some of the individual bugs make it - we can discuss that at the individual bug reports if wanted.) But there are some cases like "brutal hardcoding - breaks ony every new linux image either due to /proc, /sys or /boot/config hardcoded parsing see #443821 for the latest 2.6.23 variation" which are *not* fixed by adjusting to the current kernel, but we expect some flexibility and robustness as long term strategy. This isn't a final opinion on yaird, but please don't lower the severity of this bug report until either this bug is fixed also in the opinion of the bug reporter, or someone from the release team agrees to lowering the severity. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
