Bug#292191: upgrade changes ownerhsip of /var/spool/exim4

[Andreas Barth]

Hi,

let me please add a few words before this escalates too much.

On the one side, Marc (Lehmann), you're definitly right that this is a
bug. I personal even agree that this is a bug that should be fixed
before release of sarge. I can also understand that this bug caused you
extra work, and none of us is happy to do extra work. However, on the
other hand, it is _vital_ for release management that only the bugs are
marked with release critical priorities that _have_ to be fixed before
release of sarge - otherwise, it makes our release management harder
than it already is.

Please accept that as basis of the bug severities in Debian. They are a
management tool for us.


*  Marc A. Lehmann  (pcg@goof.com) [050125 13:19]:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 08:45:05PM +0100, Marc Haber <mh+debian-packages@zugschlus.de> wrote:
> > > Thanks that you know what we do. Unfortunately, logs didn't show anything
> > > bad as exim4 started fine and the system didn't receive mail for some
> > > time.

> > And you didn't think of testing your setup after upgrading your
> > non-released development version of your Linux distribution?
> 
> I might have (at leats I did so in the past), but the person in question
> did not. After all, this was a minor upgrade and it's not expected that
> debian scripts break the setup that way, especially not without having any
> reason to do so.
> 
> Also, I find your logic strangely flawed. Just because careful and
> knowledgable monitoring might cause the priblem not to be severe this does
> not, as you seem to assume, make the bug less problematic :(

In fact, it has always been Debians strategy that upgrade bugs can only
be release critical when they happen on upgrades from the last stable
release (in this case woody) to the current version. As exim4 was not in
woody, that cannot be the case here. That doesn't mean that I'm less
unhappy with such a bug, but just that for managing the release, this
bug cannot be release critical, and can at maximum be important (please
see above, severities are _the_ important tool to manage release of
sarge).


I hope that this bug is fixed soon (and it seems to me that Marc (Haber)
is already working on a solution); so perhaps it's possible to just
accept your differences in the severity of the bug, and work together
for a solution.


Thanks for your understanding.


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
   http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
   PGP 1024/89FB5CE5  DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F  3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C