Le Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 04:19:50PM -0700, Don Armstrong a écrit : > On Thu, 26 Apr 2012, gregor herrmann wrote: > > On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 09:33:31 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > > > > > Talking about improvements, if the following part about NMU > > > acknowledgement is > > > obsolete as I think, how about removing it, either as a separate bug, or > > > as > > > part of the general refresh of the section that is discussed here. > > > > > > To acknowledge an NMU, include its changes and changelog entry in your > > > next > > > maintainer upload. If you do not acknowledge the NMU by including the > > > NMU > > > changelog entry in your changelog, the bugs will remain closed in the > > > BTS but > > > will be listed as affecting your maintainer version of the package. > > > > Is this obsolete? In my understanding this is still how the BTS > > works; but I might have missed any changes. > > Yes, that's still how the BTS works. Otherwise, the MU is a descendant > of the previous MU instead of the NMU. You can alternatively just > include the changelog entries from the NMU too. Either works.
Thanks for the information, I thought it was obsoleted when the closing of bugs became versionned. Can you describe somewhere what the BTS is doing on that matter ? I do not understand the rationale and the function. Also, I thought that changelog-driven interaction with the BTS was only carried through dpkg-genchanges and dak... Can missing acknowledgements be corrected via the email interface ? Are there other direct interactions between a package and the BTS with its changelog ? Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120426000837.gb26...@falafel.plessy.net