Core vs. Non-Core definitions

[Thomas Ward]

Whoops, this once again got direct-sent to the person i was replying to...

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Thomas Ward <trekcaptainusa.tw at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, May 15, 2012 at 10:13 PM
Subject: Re: Core vs. Non-Core definitions
To: Geoffrey Van Wyk <geoffrey.vanwyk at bernadine.biz>


How would we handle kubuntu-desktop packages?  or xubuntu-desktop
packages?  If we restrict core to just ubuntu-desktop, then would bugs
which would be "Medium" against Kubuntu or Xubuntu packages automatically
be "Low" because at that point they're non-core?

I'm in agreement, any package that is a dependency against [flavor]-desktop
should be considered core, but it would be important to handle all the
flavors of Ubuntu similarly, no?


------
Thomas
LP: trekcaptainusa-tw
BugSquad Member
Ubuntu Member

On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 9:39 PM, Geoffrey Van Wyk <
geoffrey.vanwyk at bernadine.biz> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Maybe a core application could be one which is a dependency for the
> ubuntu-desktop package. One such application is Gwibber.
>
> Geoffrey
>
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> Subject: Core vs. Non-Core definitions
> From: Thomas Ward <trekcaptainusa.tw at gmail.com>
> To: ubuntu-bugsquad at lists.ubuntu.com
> CC:
>
>
> Hiya, all.
>
> This came up (during UDS) in a discussion I had with micahg on IRC, and
> came up again today in #ubuntu-bugs with roadmr.  (NOTE: These are the
> users' IRC nicks, I do not have their names readily available)
>
> The definition of a bug's importance includes the difference between core
> and non-core on this page here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Importance
>
>
> There is currently no clear definition of what core or non-core means.  At
> every time I have run into a bug that needs its importance set, I've
> avoided identifying whether a bug is related to a core or non-core program
> (except for Universe and Multiverse package bugs), simply because there is
> no clear-cut definition of what is or is not core.
>
> This lack of a definition can sometimes make a recommendation for "medium"
> actually end up as "low", and vice versa, based on core-vs-noncore.  This
> makes determining importance that much more difficult.
>
> Since this is a critical part of determining a bug's importance, we need
> to, in my opinion, do one of the following::
> (a) clearly define what applications specifically are or are not core, and
> update with each release, or
> (b) define what constitutes a core or non-core application/program, or
> (c) rewrite the criterion (and therefore the guide) to remove the
> difference of core vs. non-core and redefine the bug importance criterion
> accordingly.
>
> micahg was in agreement with me that this needs to be defined, so I
> thought I would bring this onto the mailing list for discussion and
> potentially a final decision be made on this.
>
>
> So, thoughts?  Opinions?
>
> ------
> Thomas
> LP: trekcaptainusa-tw
> BugSquad Member
> Ubuntu Member
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-bugsquad/attachments/20120515/e55d0062/attachment.html>