Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: severities of blocking bugs"): > Well, consider this. If there is a feature someone wants from > a package, say kernel-pack^H^H^H^Hfoo. > [most of scenario snipped -iwj] > Can one now change the wishlist bug to grave as well? I think > not, since the feature request for foo remains a feature request.
This is another example of a situation where people are trying to use the machinery intended to _support_ our work as a stick to _force_ someone to do some work that they're not interested in. If some program lacks a feature or bugfix you want for your package, then _implement it_ instead of whining ! Most maintainers are much more cooperative when you tag the bug as +patch and say something like: Here is a patch which implements this feature, which my new package universe-destruction-preventer depends on; I'd be very grateful if you could look it over and let me know what you think. You'll notice that I haven't taken the approach suggested by Fred. This is because the neutron flow can be reversed at the critical point, resulting in an unfortunate explosion in certain error cases. Instead I have made frobnicate_hairball independent of the neutron flow polarity. If you don't have the effort to make a release right now I'd be happy to make an appropriate NMU. As opposed to writing to demand that the maintainer spend their free time to help you fix your problem ! Remember also that the purpose of bug reports is to help us improve the package. The purpose of bug reports in Free software is _not_ to solve the submitter's problem ! (Although that's sometimes a helpful side-effect.) Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]