[Webapps-common-packages] Bug#453487: Severity of "should this package be orphaned/removed" bugs

[Luk Claes]

Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 27/03/08 at 10:12 +0000, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
>> Processing commands for control at bugs.debian.org:
>>
>>> severity 453487 serious
>> Bug#453487: Should this package be orphaned?
>> Severity set to `serious' from `important'
> 
> Hi,

Hi

> We really need to clarify the severities for the "Should this

> package be orphaned/removed" bugs.
> I would agree to go with:
> - serious for "proposed removal" bugs
> - important for "proposed orphan" bugs. After all, we release with a lot
>   of orphaned packages, and unmaintained packages aren't really
>   different.
> However, I fear that, since the "proposed orphan" bugs won't be RC, some
> maintainers might ignore them more easily. Also, it prevents them from
> being listed in ddpo-by-mail, for example.

Maintainers ignoring bugs is kind of the problem, so is not really an
argument...

ddpo-by-mail could probably easily be updated to include bugs with a
particular subject pattern? So also not a real argument AFAICS...

> Luk, what are the reasons why you think that severity: important is more
> suitable than severity: serious? If it's only because it blocks testing
> transitions, we could mark the bugs as found in the testing version
> where needed, so testing transitions can still happen.

Testing migration is certainly an issue.

> If that's because it "artificially" makes the RC bug count higher, we
> could tag the bugs lenny-ignore where applicable (that is, where the
> security team doesn't think that it's a too big problem to release that
> package without maintainer).

Tagging bugs lenny-ignore is only up to the Release Managers and is only
meant for bugs that will be RC for the next release...

> What do you think?

I don't see any reason to have PROP_O bugs be RC severity as orphaned
packages are in most cases not an RC problem and the cases where they
are a problem there should already be open RC bugs against the package...

PROP_RM bugs could be RC severity, but if so I would remove the
mentioning of orphaning in the template so it's clear for everyone that
it should not be used lightly and strong arguments are needed for
orphaning instead of removal...

Cheers

Luk