* Rene Engelhard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030601 18:50]: > Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 02:59:40PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote: > > > > > > * New upstream version (Closes: #193497) > > > > > > Meep. No. > > > > > > Write proper changelogs and(or close bugs the right way[tm]. That > > > form is only acceptable for "New upstream version, please package it" > > > like bugs. > > > > With all due respect: piss off. > > > > Is this a new sport in #d-d or something like that? I read that entry > > as "the new upstream version fixes the problem reported in #193497", > > and looking at the BTS that is exactly its meaning. > > yes. And what is when someone is offline and wants to see what > that bug was about? > > But we discussed that already enough on this list...
You should really accept the decision of a package maintainer. However, it really might be better to put a longer statement into changelog. _But_ it's certainly much worse to re-open a really closed bug than to make a too short changelog entry. (BTW: You should really make cleaner why changing of the compiler closes the Bug 194555. The situation there is fare worse than here. You shouldn't flame until you're perfekt.) Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C