Control: severity -1 wishlist Control: tags -1 +wontfix On Sun, Jan 01, 2023 at 11:49:26PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: > [ Thanks for fixing the bug in unstable so fast ]
... too fast, in fact. Per the discussion on debian-policy, it's not a bug, and this way I have a redundant dependency which actually is a bug (for a good reason: it makes it harder to reorganize unrelated packages). I've thus reverted the change -- in git, not worth a separate upload. > > I'm all for fixing bugs in stable that: > > * are obviously bugs (rather than a point of debate) > > You are the only one debating this, but it should really not be a point of > debate. Per debian-policy, indeed. Good that the debate has been resolved. [...] > [ In fact, I wonder why you bothered to add the missing B-D if you really > believe it > is not a bug. Because I considered doing so to be less effort than arguing. Which has proven to be premature. [...] > I think it is important to honor the promises we made to the users. We > promised a stable release without FTBFS bugs, and we are almost delivering > it, but not completely. > > In the end, it boils down to where do we draw the line. You think having > a reduced number of packages which FTBFS according to Policy is ok. I think > the only acceptable number of FTBFS bugs to have in a stable release is zero, > and I am working towards such goal. Here I agree, but inventing new bugs where there's no FTBFS is not helpful. "FTBFS" means the package actually fails to build from source, using any of build machinery present in the archive, on a realistic hardware/kernel/setup, for a distribution the given bug is marked as affecting. Thus, for example: a FTBFS with a future version of gcc or with buildflags that are not enabled yet is not a RC bug, becoming serious only once such a compiler/configuration is actually uploaded to unstable. Likewise, a change to the build environment where tzdata is no longer available, would be RC only in unstable but not in bullseye. > So the only thing I ask is that you do not insist that this is not a bug > when I reopen it for bullseye. Since I will be the one doing the work, > I think I should be allowed to use the BTS to track those bugs. Okay, I'm not closing the bug for bullseye. I did though reduce the severity to wishlist as it's (per the debian-policy discussion) neither RC nor even contravening bullseye's nor current unstable's policy, and the change is opposed by a number of people. Meow! -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Bestest pickup line: ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ "Cutie, your name must be Suicide, cuz I think of you every day." ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀
