On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 09:46:35PM +0000, Jeremy Sowden wrote: > On 2023-01-19, at 22:56:39 +0100, Romain Francoise wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 7:01 PM Jeremy Sowden wrote: > > > I've pushed all the work to my repo on Salsa: > > > > > > https://salsa.debian.org/azazel/shorewall > > > > > > Do you want to review it before I push to the shorewall-team repo? > > > > It all looks pretty good to me! In fact, it's a radical improvement > > over the previous packaging with seven source packages. > > > > [...] > > > > I have not yet actually tested the packages in my lab but please feel > > free to push your changes to the team repo, and I will do the final > > testing and upload over the week-end. I can also take care of opening > > the bugs to have the previous source packages removed from unstable. > > I was wondering about this shorewall-doc bug: > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=266957 > > Once 5.2.8 is uploaded there won't be a shorewall-doc source package. > Shall I reassign it to shorewall? > > J.
That's a good question. I think that the bug is actually assigned to the shorewall-doc binary package, not the shorewall-doc source package. Assuming that the shorewall source package will start to emit a shorewall-doc binary package, I think that the BTS will do the right thing and leaving the bug assigned to shorewall-doc is correct. In that case, the source package association of shorewall-doc will change, but its bugs will still belong to shorewall-doc (the binary package). If you think about it, this must be the case, as closed and archived bugs would end up being orphaned otherwise. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez