Bug#640152: acknowledged by developer (closing 640152)
Hi Pierre, am Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 03:27:18PM + hast du folgendes geschrieben: This is an automatic notification regarding your Bug report #640152: FTBFS: needs build-dep on automake, which was filed against the valgrind package. It has been marked as closed by one of the developers, namely Pierre Habouzit madco...@debian.org. You should be hearing from them with a substantive response shortly, in case you haven't already. If not, please contact them directly. apart from close being deprecated: that's not how version tracking in the BTS works. You need to state versions that actually exist(ed) somewhere in the changelog. Otherwise it can't figure out where it got fixed. (Like a bug being re-introduced in a maintainer upload that didn't include a previous NMU, for instance.) As far as I can see it's not even fixed in the archive yet, so it's technically not even done. Kind regards Philipp Kern signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#640152: acknowledged by developer (closing 640152)
tag 640152 + experimental thanks On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 04:36:48PM +0100, Philipp Kern wrote: Hi Pierre, am Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 03:27:18PM + hast du folgendes geschrieben: This is an automatic notification regarding your Bug report #640152: FTBFS: needs build-dep on automake, which was filed against the valgrind package. It has been marked as closed by one of the developers, namely Pierre Habouzit madco...@debian.org. You should be hearing from them with a substantive response shortly, in case you haven't already. If not, please contact them directly. apart from close being deprecated: that's not how version tracking in the BTS works. You need to state versions that actually exist(ed) somewhere in the changelog. Otherwise it can't figure out where it got fixed. (Like a bug being re-introduced in a maintainer upload that didn't include a previous NMU, for instance.) It's a bug that isn't fixed by any package because it was a bogus upload in experimental, that is fixed because the 3.7.0 has been rerolled. It's transient, and doesn't warrant a Close in the 3.7.0 changelog that doesn't even come from the same git branch at all. It made no sense. (when I rolled the snapshot tarball for experimental I ran autoconf without the --copy flag and it had symlinks instead of copies of the autocrap stuff). I've closed this bug because it's just spurious, and never existed in the unstable branches. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··Omadco...@debian.org OOOhttp://www.madism.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#640152: acknowledged by developer (closing 640152)
Pierre, am Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 07:14:36PM +0100 hast du folgendes geschrieben: It's a bug that isn't fixed by any package because it was a bogus upload in experimental, that is fixed because the 3.7.0 has been rerolled. It's transient, and doesn't warrant a Close in the 3.7.0 changelog that doesn't even come from the same git branch at all. It made no sense. (when I rolled the snapshot tarball for experimental I ran autoconf without the --copy flag and it had symlinks instead of copies of the autocrap stuff). ok, if the new upload doesn't have the old experimental changelog in it, it won't be affecting experimental anymore anyway and you could indeed just close it, but… I've closed this bug because it's just spurious, and never existed in the unstable branches. we're tracking more than unstable in the BTS, though. So I would've waited until a fixed package hits experimental, I guess. Kind regards Philipp Kern signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#640152: acknowledged by developer (closing 640152)
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 09:39:20PM +0100, Philipp Kern wrote: Pierre, am Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 07:14:36PM +0100 hast du folgendes geschrieben: It's a bug that isn't fixed by any package because it was a bogus upload in experimental, that is fixed because the 3.7.0 has been rerolled. It's transient, and doesn't warrant a Close in the 3.7.0 changelog that doesn't even come from the same git branch at all. It made no sense. (when I rolled the snapshot tarball for experimental I ran autoconf without the --copy flag and it had symlinks instead of copies of the autocrap stuff). ok, if the new upload doesn't have the old experimental changelog in it, it won't be affecting experimental anymore anyway and you could indeed just close it, but… I've closed this bug because it's just spurious, and never existed in the unstable branches. we're tracking more than unstable in the BTS, though. So I would've waited until a fixed package hits experimental, I guess. the experimental package was a pre 3.7.0 release, which has been released and uploaded to unstable, the experimental package will go away and I don't plan any experimental upload for a long time. But okay, next time I'll close from the changelog, I thought it made more sense, it wasn't a lapse, I made it on purpose to avoid cluttering the changelog with orthogonal stuff :) -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··Omadco...@debian.org OOOhttp://www.madism.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
