On Wed, Jan 21, 1998 at 03:59:03AM -0800, Guy Maor wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Braakman) writes: > > > I think that any of these measures would be preferable to introducing > > a new class of "fixed but open" bugs. Such bugs would interfere with > > the attempts to use the bug system as an aid to release engineering, > > I don't think that there are so many nmus that this will become a > problem. If it does become a problem, the easiest way to fix it would > be to introduce a new severity which is lower even than wishlist for > such "nmu-fixed" bugs. In the mean time, let's just write in the > policy that nmus should not close bugs.
Well an "egrep" though availabe reveals about 135 NMUs. I think that most of these should really be orphaned packages maintained by the QA group. This has (at least) two advantages: - bug reports go to the correct maintainer - fixed bugs can be closed My thinking seems to be correct as only 19 packages in total are maintained by the qa-group (of which three have non-maintainer debian version numbers!). Perhaps we should suggest in the policy manual that if you do a NMU because the maintainer seems to have disappeared (or isn't maintaining any longer), you should see if the package should be orphaned. I'd suggest: - emailing the maintainer (wait a few days) - post to devel to see if anyone knows anything (wait a few days) - release a NMU orphaning the package The NMU mentioned above might be the one that fixes the bugs and/or updates the package, it doesn't matter. Adrian email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Debian Linux - www.debian.org http://www.poboxes.com/adrian.bridgett | Because bloated, unstable PGP key available on public key servers | operating systems are from MS
