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.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team
Please use
debian-j...@lists.debian.org for discussions and questions.

Reply via email to