On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 10:49:21AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > > We never really handled source packages at all, actually. [We just > > sort of assumed that a bug assigned to a package for which there > > wasn't a corresponding binary package was assigned to a source package > > with that name.] > > Yes, this was a longstanding assumption that many BTS users relied > on - and that many still *do* rely on...
Yeah; I'm /probably/ going to do this munging of non-existant binary package -> existing source package of same name at reassign and submit time in the future to fixup this practice without having to harass maintainers every time they do it. > > I think the only reasonable method is to go through bug reports > > which are assigned to a binary package for which the binary > > package doesn't exist, but the corresponding source package does, > > and reassign them... > > Yes, I agree :) Ok. Once I get another clone of me working, this'll happen. > > Right, but those cases will still work if it was assinged to the > > openldap binary package > > There's no openldap binary package and never has been? Heh. Stupid me. I mean slapd, of course! ;-) Don Armstrong -- Never underestimate the power of human stupidity. -- Robert Heinlein http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
