On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 02:11:24PM -0300, Santiago Ruano Rincón wrote: > > because the bug is closed in unstable. if it's still fixed in older suite, > > we (in Debian, in general) don't keep the bugs open. > s/still/still to be/?
sorry, I ment 'unfixed', not 'fixed'.
> > else you would need to re-open all other bugs too, which are not fixed in
> > older suites.
> OK. My intention is/was to re-open bugs that I needed to fix. Along with
> #986333, I need to close #986581 in bullseye and buster too (*). For
> this update, may I stick with the unarchiving & reopening procedure, to
> keep it consistent?
>
> Or do you still want me to open a new bug for it?
I'd prefer neither. Just add Closes: #123456 in changelog and the BTS will
correctly mark it fixed in that version as well. Maybe you need to manually
unarchive the bug for this, but there's no need to reopen.
> Indeed, brain fail typo! 😬
happens to the best! :)
> I correct:
> "As discussed in #debian-lts, unarchiving & reopening since this bug is
> present in bullseye and buster"
that makes sense. :)
--
cheers,
Holger
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C
⠈⠳⣄
Where will you go when you become a climate refugee?
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
