>> I'm asking mostly for bug reporting. I don't maintain any libraries. >> When I file a bug report against a library for breaking ABI >> compatability without bumping the soname, do I report it as serious? >> Or just important? What would the justification be for reporting as >> serious if there is no policy regarding it?
>Yes, serious at least, but I'd even say âgraveâ: ârenders package >unusableâ (by its dependencies) in reportbug. That is a bit of a stretch. It would not be unusable. You can't really say "breaks unrelated packages" either, because they would have a direct relation. It seems like I've gotten to the point where I thought I had a good idea as to how debian works, and then I find that maybe I don't know as much as I thought I did. >> I agree with that, at least somewhat. The problem is that some >> excellent packages would not be able to make it into debian at all, >> because they depend on a volatile library. >You aren't speaking about the ffmpeg case, are you? No, I don't know much about that. I'm thinking of libguichan. Three packages in debian require it. I'm thinking of using it for a project I am working on. I noticed that a serious bug report filed against the guichan debian package was closed, but not fixed. I was just wondering about how I would justify keeping the bug at RC, if the maintainer wanted to downgrade it. He is cooperative, and is genuinely trying his best to maintain a good stable package, but I like to plan ahead. I also thought it was odd that soname was barely mentioned in debian policy, as it is so important. I recommended to Patrick, the maintainer of guichan, that he writes to this list to ask about how he should handle his package. -Brandon
