[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Jackson) writes: > 16. If the rpvm maintainer is of the opinion that there is no change > needed to rpvm to fix the problem - ie, that the problem will be > fixed automatically when the missing library is provided by pvm - > then the rpvm maintainer may, if they wish, close their bug or > merge it with the pvm bug.
I disagree with this point. The bug should remain open and unmerged. It has been our custom to leave FTBFS bugs like 266837 open at the non-RC "important" priority until they are resolved, regardless of whether the resolution involves a source change in the package or some other change elsewhere. This makes sense because there is often an action required (upload a new version to trigger autobuilding, etc) to get the package to actually build... even if the root cause is fixed in some other package. Keeping the FTBFS bug open in our BTS is the best way of making sure this gets done eventually. I would remind everyone involved that having a FTBFS bug open does not reflect poorly on the maintainer of the package in cases like this, as long as suitable explaining text is part of the bug history. Bdale
