Debian Bug report logs - #277074
Useless without 'abuse' or 'abuse-sdl' packages

Package: abuse-lib; Maintainer for abuse-lib is Debian Games Team <pkg-games-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org>;

Reported by: Jeroen van Wolffelaar <jeroen@wolffelaar.nl>

Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 11:48:03 UTC

Severity: serious

Tags: confirmed

Done: Sam Hocevar <sam@zoy.org>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log


View this message in rfc822 format

X-Loop: owner@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Bug#277074: Circular dependencies are not a good idea
Reply-To: Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org>, 277074@bugs.debian.org
Resent-From: Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org>
Resent-To: debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org
Resent-CC: Sam Hocevar (Debian packages) <sam+deb@zoy.org>
Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 19:03:03 UTC
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.277074.B277074.109821168514794@bugs.debian.org>
Resent-Sender: owner@bugs.debian.org
X-Debian-PR-Message: report 277074
X-Debian-PR-Package: abuse-lib
X-Debian-PR-Keywords: pending confirmed
Received: via spool by 277074-submit@bugs.debian.org id=B277074.109821168514794
          (code B ref 277074); Tue, 19 Oct 2004 19:03:03 UTC
Received: (at 277074) by bugs.debian.org; 19 Oct 2004 18:48:05 +0000
Received: from chiark.greenend.org.uk [193.201.200.170] (mail)
	by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
	id 1CJz1h-0003qC-00; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 11:48:05 -0700
Received: from [192.168.124.112] (helo=riva.lab.dotat.at)
	by chiark.greenend.org.uk (Debian Exim 3.35 #1) with esmtp
	(return-path cjwatson@flatline.org.uk)
	id 1CJz1f-0001Ia-00; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 19:48:03 +0100
Received: from cjwatson by riva.lab.dotat.at with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	id 1CJz1Z-0005La-00; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 19:47:57 +0100
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 19:47:57 +0100
From: Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org>
To: Jeroen van Wolffelaar <jeroen@wolffelaar.nl>
Cc: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>, 277074@bugs.debian.org,
	debian-release@lists.debian.org
Message-ID: <20041019184757.GO8118@riva.ucam.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Jeroen van Wolffelaar <jeroen@wolffelaar.nl>,
	Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>, 277074@bugs.debian.org,
	debian-release@lists.debian.org
References: <20041018113154.GA29373@wolffelaar.nl> <20041019163410.GC1960@stusta.de> <20041019171856.GN8118@riva.ucam.org> <20041019174012.GJ1960@stusta.de> <20041019180117.GE6784@A-Eskwadraat.nl> <20041019181954.GO1960@stusta.de> <20041019182449.GF6784@A-Eskwadraat.nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20041019182449.GF6784@A-Eskwadraat.nl>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
Delivered-To: 277074@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25 
	(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER 
	autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
X-Spam-Level: 
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 08:24:49PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 08:19:54PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 08:01:17PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> > > You file it at 'important'. The 'serious' severity is defined by the
> > > release managers, and unfulfillable recommends is not one of the
> > > criteria. Yes, this is not completely obvious from the documentation of
> > > the BTS, since this used to be different. It is currently true, though.
> > 
> > This is wrong. "serious' is defined in section 1.1 of the Debian Policy 
> > Manual. [1]
> 
> http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#severities
> | serious
> |   is a severe violation of Debian policy[2] (roughly, it violates a
> | 	"must" or "required" directive), or, in the package maintainer's
> | 	opinion, makes the package unsuitable for release.

Note the "roughly" here. Even by its own admission, the Debian Policy
Manual is not an exact definition of serious bugs, merely a guideline:

     These classifications are roughly equivalent to the bug severities
     _serious_ (for _must_ or _required_ directive violations), _minor_,
     _normal_ or _important_ (for _should_ or _recommended_ directive
     violations) and _wishlist_ (for _optional_ items).  [2]

Note, again, the "roughly".

> [2] http://release.debian.org/sarge_rc_policy.txt
> 
> And [2] says:
> | The purpose of this document is to be a correct, complete and canonical
> | list of issues that merit a "serious" bug under the clause "a severe
> | violation of Debian policy". 
> 
> Serious was created expressly for release management purposes, and it is
> within the RM's domain, or otherwise at least the BTS manager's domain
> (which happens to have one person in common) to define it.

In case it's not obvious, I am in full support of Jeroen here, in both
of the above capacities.

Cheers,

-- 
Colin Watson                                       [cjwatson@debian.org]



Send a report that this bug log contains spam.


Debian bug tracking system administrator <owner@bugs.debian.org>. Last modified: Sat Apr 19 20:37:27 2014; Machine Name: buxtehude.debian.org

Debian Bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.