Re: New bug Severity for release-goals?
In article <m0xZadt-001NHbC@night>,
dark@xs4all.nl (Richard Braakman) writes:
> * All packages are in the new package format.
> * All packages in main distribution are compiled with libc6.
> * Fix packages currently depending on 'libc5-dev'.
> * Officially supports {i386,m68k,alpha,sparc} architectures (mips,ppc?).
> * No more dependencies on obsolete virtual packages (X11R6, elf-x11r6libs, ...).
> No a.out executables anymore.
> * Remove "--force-overwrite" flag from dpkg defaults
> * Much improved dpkg/dselect.
> * Use PAM within authentication programs [13]
We decided not to do that for 2.0 didn't we?
> * Link shared libs against other shared libs instead of static [14]
What you mean is `link shared libs so they contain dependency information'.
If you don't do that, ldd says `statically linked' but that's just a very
misleading error, since libraries are never statically linked.
> - "Package is still in old source format"
> - "Package is linked with libc5" (or a libc5-based library)
> (except for packages in oldlibs, of course)
> - "Library is still libc5-based"
> - "Package depends on elf-x11r6libs"
> - "Package has overlap with other package"
I would add library doesn't contain dependency information to that, i.e.
libcompface is definitely not releasable.
> The only thing missing is a good name for this severity. Brian White
> used "critical" but that is already taken. "release-critical" is too
> long,
Is it? I imagine most of these bugs will be generated by scripts, so the
fact that it takes too long to type isn't a problem.
.
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: