> On Wed, 21 Sep 2016, Frank Heckenbach wrote: > > I've just experienced another such case after gcc-4.9 was "removed" > > (#785249, which was reported upstream, and probably a whole more, > > some of which are probably lost now). > > These all still exist, and generally speaking, they get reassigned to > the new version of the package when someone notices them and reassigns > them.
That's the point -- *if* someone notices them. From my POV, for those bugs I reported, it just seems like an (involuntary) wontfix. (As I wrote, I had reported them upstream, so they were not lost for that reason, but at least for the older two of them, there was no indication of that in the Debian bug database, and no one asked me about it, and it's been over a year, so I don't think they would have been noticed otherwise.) > As far as automatically reassigning, that will eventually happen when > the BTS actually knows that a particular source package was based on > another source package with a different name. There's code to do that, > but it's not complete. Good to know it's being worked on. I hope it will be deployed soon. Thanks for the info! Frank
