[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
Keith Abraham wrote: > > Nope. I just find such words as "critical" a bit frightening. Perhaps I'm > being naive in understanding a bug status of "critical" (and "grave") > as akin to their use in a hospital? I don't think the categorisation of bugs in Debian is terribly scientific, the reporter specifies the category, then the maintainer regrades them as he thinks appropriate (or as the guidelines demand). Experience is that outside of "stable" it is not uncommon to have packages with bugs of this severity turn up fairly regularly (daily at times). Of course one takes it with a grain of salt, because presumably all the more cutting edge (than Debian stable) GNU/Linux distros have pretty much the same bugs, and there are presumably plenty of such bugs left undiscovered that human nature tends to lead us not to worry as much about. Human nature also tends to mean people report the severity of the bugs they find as higher than they deserve, because if you hit the bug, inevitably it is in your way, the fact 10,000 other people used the package without hitting that bug doesn't occur to the guy whose computer isn't doing what it should. I'm guilty of this, but I try hard to correct for the natural bias. I guess if you want to minimise such issues you opt for "stable". > ... so I'll do an "dist-upgrade" after my next backup. Very wise. -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG Mail majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "unsubscribe list" in the message body to unsubscribe. FAQ: www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html