On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 10:49:21AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > We never really handled source packages at all, actually. [We just > sort of assumed that a bug assigned to a package for which there > wasn't a corresponding binary package was assigned to a source package > with that name.]
Yes, this was a longstanding assumption that many BTS users relied on - and that many still *do* rely on... > I think the only reasonable method is to go through bug reports which are > assigned to a binary package for which the binary package doesn't exist, > but the corresponding source package does, and reassign them... Yes, I agree :) > > > [If you wanted to have it specifically assigned to both, then it > > > should be assigned to src:openldap2.3 and src:openldap... but I > > > don't really see the point.] > > In this particular case the benefit of recording that the bug was > > present in all versions of a package only present in oldstable and > > earlier is minimal. But in other cases (incl. future cases), there > > may be richer data available, such as information about versions of > > the package that the bug is closed in that may be useful to admins > > of systems that are desperately in need of upgrade, or useful in the > > aggregate. > Right, but those cases will still work if it was assinged to the > openldap binary package There's no openldap binary package and never has been? -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ [email protected] [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
