On Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 02:22:10PM -0500, Drew Scott Daniels wrote: > On Tue, 15 Apr 2003, Colin Watson wrote: > > All these priority mismatch bugs are a waste of time, IMHO. The > > ftpmasters have to modify the override file anyway in order for anything > > to happen, and it's perfectly possible for them to do so in the absence > > of any change to the package (so NMUs for such bugs are not only > > overkill but useless). Furthermore, in the absence of filed RC bugs > > priority mismatches do not affect migration into testing, regardless of > > what debcheck.php may say, so the entire premise of the bug was wrong. > > Are there others? I haven't checked yet. Perhaps at least a comment about > this should be made to any other such bugs. debcheck.php should probably > document that priority mismatches do not affect migration to reduce these > kinds of bugs.
It should also tell people not to report serious bugs based on its output unless they're sure. > Does debcheck.php incorrectly not check overrides? debcheck.php doesn't report these problems any more. Look again ... > > In any case, if you look closely, you'll find that libdb4.0 was always > > Priority: standard in its debian/control file, so this must have been > > due to overrides in the first place, which now say that libdb4.0 is > > Priority: standard: > [...] > > > > So this bug should just be closed. > > By who and when? Ideally Matthew Wilcox or the submitter (cc'ed). Ping? > Should this bug be downgraded first? I could see this bug being filed > again so perhaps a downgrade and a wontfix tag until an upload is done > fixing the Priority field and debcheck.php doesn't mislead people > about this? The Priority field was never broken in the package itself, and debcheck.php does not report any problems with libdb4.0. It does report a problem with libdb4.0-dev on sh, but that's an irrelevant and completely broken architecture which you should ignore for now. > http://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/d/db4.0/db4.0_4.0.14-1.2.diff.gz > says: > [...] > +Package: libdb4.0-dev That's libdb4.0-dev, not libdb4.0. Cheers, -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
