reassign 1114048 src:apertium reassign 1114051 src:apertium reassign 1114050 src:apertium affects 1114048 src:apertium-dan-nor affects 1114051 src:apertium-nno-nob affects 1114050 src:apertium-swe-nor close 1114048 close 1114051 close 1114050 thanks
Hello. I've noticed that those three packages build again this week, even if their status have not changed in six months (no new uploads etc). I did a debbisect for apertium-nno-nob and this was the outcome: bisection finished successfully last bad timestamp: 20260302T143911Z first good timestamp: 20260303T022848Z the following packages differ between the last bad and first good timestamp: apertium 3.9.12-1+b2 -> 3.9.12-1+b3 apertium-dev 3.9.12-1+b2 -> 3.9.12-1+b3 apertium-lex-tools 0.5.0-1+b2 -> 0.5.0-1+b3 apertium-lex-tools-dev 0.5.0-1+b2 -> 0.5.0-1+b3 apertium-separable 0.7.1-1 -> 0.7.1-1+b1 libapertium-lex-tools1:amd64 0.5.0-1+b2 -> 0.5.0-1+b3 libapertium3:amd64 3.9.12-1+b2 -> 3.9.12-1+b3 libicu76:amd64 76.1-4+b1 -> (n.a.) and I believe the other two should be similar, so it seems that it was apertium to blame after all. I still don't understand how things like this may happen. Was this an undeclared transition? Also: I would like to use found with "0.5.0-1+b2" and fixed with "0.5.0-1+b3" but last time I tried something similar the BTS did not help. Is there a way to properly use fixed and found for this bug, assuming it was a bug in apertium? Thanks.
