On 01/07/2015 10:41 PM, Niels Thykier wrote: > On 2015-01-08 05:17, tony mancill wrote: >> [...] >> >> >> Hello Hilko, Emmanuel, >> >> I'm taking a look at this, but in the interest of the jessie release, I >> wanted to ask Emmanuel whether it would be okay to decrease the severity. >> >> We have a number of other packages with missing or incomplete poms, and >> propose that we discuss maven metadata for all Java library packages as >> a release goal for jessie + 1. >> >> Otherwise, the package will be removed soonish (February 5th). >> >> https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/lucene4 >> >> Thanks, >> tony >> >> [...] > > Hi, > > If the bug is RC on its own, but you believe it is irrelevant for the > Jessie release, the correct option would be to have it ignored (please > file a bug against release.debian.org for that). > Mind you, the assumption is that the bug is in fact RC. If not, the > release team will probably recommend downgrading it instead. > > If the bug only prevents "new packages" from being build (i.e. packages > not already in Jessie/sid), it /sounds/ like it might not be RC after > all (maybe "important"). However, please keep in mind that my answer is > solely based on the above mail.
Hi Niels, Thank you for the guidance. In the case of #773805 (maven pom), I do believe that it's not RC from a severity standpoint. I think #773829 might fall into the same category, although I do have a patch and will be uploading a new package with just this build change tomorrow morning. Cheers, tony
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
__ This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers>. Please use debian-j...@lists.debian.org for discussions and questions.