Re: Technical Committee: decision on #119517?

2002-04-27 Thread Manoj Srivastava
>>"Ian" == Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Ian> Manoj Srivastava writes (SuperCite undone): >> Ian Jackson: >> > As I understand it, the supposed principle which is being applied is >> > that it is unacceptable to have a binary in the package which depends >> > on libraries not mentio

Re: Release-critical bugs, and #97671

2002-04-27 Thread Manoj Srivastava
>>"Ian" == Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Ian> In this case then there are several pieces of different information Ian> which we might record in the BTS severity field: Ian> (a) The package maintainer's idea of how urgent/important the Ian> bug is Ian> (c) Something specified

Re: Release-critical bugs, and #97671

2002-04-27 Thread Ian Jackson
Anthony Towns writes ("Re: Release-critical bugs, and #97671"): > On Sat, Apr 27, 2002 at 01:34:26AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > > But, the idea in the policy manual is that a `must' is a rule for > > which there are not expected to be exceptions; it doesn't touch on how > > damaging a breach of th

Re: Release-critical bugs, and #97671

2002-04-27 Thread Ian Jackson
Anthony Towns writes ("Re: Release-critical bugs, and #97671"): > It's not clear to me why tech-ctte discussions seem to not get cc'ed to > the appropriate bug number properly. See also the discussion for the > pcmcia-cs bug, much of which happened on the list rather than in the > bug report. Bug

Re: Technical Committee: decision on #119517?

2002-04-27 Thread Ian Jackson
Manoj Srivastava writes (SuperCite undone): > Ian Jackson: > > As I understand it, the supposed principle which is being applied is > > that it is unacceptable to have a binary in the package which depends > > on libraries not mentioned in Depends, and that Recommends or Suggests > > are not suffic