Bug#737208: RFS: linuxlogo/5.11-4
* Dariusz Dwornikowski dariusz.dwornikow...@cs.put.poznan.pl, 2014-02-03, 08:46: I do not want to close old bugs. Just asking, what will happen with bugs for older versions that e.g. are not used anywhere no more? Will these bugs hang forever or is there a cleaning policy ? The bugs will remain open until someone closes them. I'm not sure what you mean by cleaning policy. -- Jakub Wilk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#737208: RFS: linuxlogo/5.11-4
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 02/03/2014 02:46 AM, Dariusz Dwornikowski wrote: I do not want to close old bugs. Just asking, what will happen with bugs for older versions that e.g. are not used anywhere no more? Will these bugs hang forever or is there a cleaning policy ? Whether to close a bug has, AFAIK, nothing to do with whether the version it was reported against is still in use. It's entirely about whether the bug exists in current packaged versions. If the bug is still valid - meaning, mostly, if the behavior described in the bug A: is in fact considered a bug and B: still exists in the current version - the bug should remain open, even if that means remaining open forever. If the behavior described in the bug no longer exists in the current version, but for some reason the bug wasn't closed when the fix was first released, then I'd imagine that the bug should be closed manually (with a comment explaining that the bug is know to be fixed as of such-and-such a version). In the specific case of the bug you tried to close (twice) in the changelog which led to this subthread discussion, the correct thing to do is not clear at a glance. This is because you gave two different explanations of why you were closing it, and the two explanations disagree with one another. One explanation was upstream won't fix. This seems to imply that the behavior described does still exist in the current packaged version, and that upstream has refused to change it. I believe that would be handled one of two ways: * Decide that the behavior described isn't really a bug after all, and close the bug report. * Decide that the behavior is a bug, and leave the bug report open to reflect the fact that the behavior still exists in the current packaged version. The other explanation was not relevant anymore. This seems to imply that the behavior described no longer exists in the current packaged version, but that for some reason the bug wasn't closed when the change actually occurred. I think that in that case, the correct thing to do would be to close the bug report manually (not via a changelog entry), with a comment explaining that the bug is known to have been fixed sometime before version Such-and-such. I'm not an expert on these matters, however. I hope that helps. (And that I haven't gotten anything wrong anywhere.) - -- The Wanderer Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny. A government exists to serve its citizens, not to control them. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJS9Y2HAAoJEASpNY00KDJr1yoP/AxDl1Xxx97kIL2QyDsoRUQ3 lhHWR2cZFmFtiUbdRpKRwzwcUj2IU2IUtphP+30y6EzI82YYXkrKJvYHEBt6kMWg tW68HYhA9lXEtPEq/QMP4tkfEhTAoDg5WaDUK2aG0TmAOq0+UK5sC+xrM24YdTxu 8BcqDki12nFH51RKzdG2lhhvkGmKPQmL6T4/jB8xCasCPWGlgu4ZGjdtDTRLbrXn FgVfIBigDmvSn9yEZrlvJiSReE3Prv8CzUi3vSg6UvNMRfQoGkj1sA8/+X++AoMW twS2Gyj0YqN3QSk/m+/LUo7Ft4DTOZCtpa4ffOHYNl9C/6VsbWO67VN/RbsWhWmM vaFPGHf98THd6gGiFAYvLGjpzUZ8bmvxhBApgx0/9l1wx1VjHRdnd6TsemAuvUVy /Wph8wpu0xvxCtE+TLRRoLDoRERpKZbvafrLPm07VcBuXr3uDWHv6ZOEY3CwI0WG bp/+/4mCE27wP6ji01BuIzqItQ4pJVaRQ4eqRW3mGcSwCU3r3Tb0om7zTrYocfxG b2xK8SWPbJzbW4GlKvSkt7nF/fxVBp4y40b71qPicx0UDK/R4fEVzmS/Otn9LXtS PLSMLa+3VXXCCDTwSEG8yuDJA+c8aA2ARh/+uR+opCdK2GVjnj3fzmShuj21FNAu +tGpbUfClzj3uG0gqDL/ =brz9 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#737208: RFS: linuxlogo/5.11-4
* Dariusz Dwornikowski dariusz.dwornikow...@cs.put.poznan.pl, 2014-01-31, 21:02: Should these bugs be then closed manually ? Which bugs, and why do you want to close them? -- Jakub Wilk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#737208: RFS: linuxlogo/5.11-4
I do not want to close old bugs. Just asking, what will happen with bugs for older versions that e.g. are not used anywhere no more? Will these bugs hang forever or is there a cleaning policy ? On 2 February 2014 22:23, Jakub Wilk jw...@debian.org wrote: * Dariusz Dwornikowski dariusz.dwornikow...@cs.put.poznan.pl, 2014-01-31, 21:02: Should these bugs be then closed manually ? Which bugs, and why do you want to close them? -- Jakub Wilk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140202212348.ga13...@jwilk.net -- Pozdrawiam, Dariusz Dwornikowski, Assistant Institute of Computing Science, Poznań University of Technology www.cs.put.poznan.pl/ddwornikowski/ room 2.7.2 BTiCW | tel. +48 61 665 29 41
Bug#737208: RFS: linuxlogo/5.11-4
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package linuxlogo * Package name: linuxlogo Version : 5.11-4 Upstream Author : Vince Weaver * URL : http://www.deater.net/weave/vmwprod/linux_logo/ * License : GPL-2 Section : misc It builds those binary packages: linuxlogo - Color ANSI System Logo To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/linuxlogo Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/linuxlogo/linuxlogo_5.11-4.dsc More information about hello can be obtained from http://www.example.com. Changes since the last upload: * Migrated to dh * ITA (Closes: #726550) * Closes: #187655, upstream won't fix * Closes: #187655, not relevant anymore * Bump standards to 3.9.5 * New logos added (Raspberry PI and OpenBSD) * Migrated to quilt 3.0 format Regards, Dariusz Dwornikowski -- Pozdrawiam, Dariusz Dwornikowski, Assistant Institute of Computing Science, Poznań University of Technology www.cs.put.poznan.pl/ddwornikowski/ room 2.7.2 BTiCW | tel. +48 61 665 29 41
Bug#737208: RFS: linuxlogo/5.11-4
I don't intend to sponsor this package, sorry! It would have been better if you hadn't explicitly CC debian-mentors@ldo when subitting the RFS bug. The mailing list receives all the bugreports anyway; but if you CC it, it gets a copy without the bug number assigned. * Dariusz Dwornikowski dariusz.dwornikow...@cs.put.poznan.pl, 2014-01-31, 12:27: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/linuxlogo/linuxlogo_5.11-4.dsc More information about hello can be obtained from http://www.example.com. Oh really, example.com? :) * Closes: #187655, upstream won't fix * Closes: #187655, not relevant anymore Why close the same bug twice? Anyway, Developer's Reference §5.8.4 reads: “Do not close bugs in the changelog entry of a version if the changes in that version of the package don't have any bearing on the bug.” -- Jakub Wilk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#737208: RFS: linuxlogo/5.11-4
Ok thank You, I will fix these asap. Should these bugs be then closed manually ? On 31 January 2014 20:17, Jakub Wilk jw...@debian.org wrote: I don't intend to sponsor this package, sorry! It would have been better if you hadn't explicitly CC debian-mentors@ldowhen subitting the RFS bug. The mailing list receives all the bugreports anyway; but if you CC it, it gets a copy without the bug number assigned. * Dariusz Dwornikowski dariusz.dwornikow...@cs.put.poznan.pl, 2014-01-31, 12:27: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/linuxlogo/ linuxlogo_5.11-4.dsc More information about hello can be obtained from http://www.example.com . Oh really, example.com? :) * Closes: #187655, upstream won't fix * Closes: #187655, not relevant anymore Why close the same bug twice? Anyway, Developer's Reference §5.8.4 reads: “Do not close bugs in the changelog entry of a version if the changes in that version of the package don't have any bearing on the bug.” -- Jakub Wilk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140131191716.ga6...@jwilk.net -- Pozdrawiam, Dariusz Dwornikowski, Assistant Institute of Computing Science, Poznań University of Technology www.cs.put.poznan.pl/ddwornikowski/ room 2.7.2 BTiCW | tel. +48 61 665 29 41
