Hi, regarding: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=225882
This report brings up some interesting questions. Does Debian support (as in willing to track down bugs resulting from) the use of stable, testing, unstable, and experimental in one sources.list file? The packages mentioned were in the stable release of the day and not in testing/unstable, but no one ever asked which other packages were missing or how APT saw the situation (i.e., the output of "apt-cache policy", "apt-cache dumpavail", or a diff of apt-cache's dump and dumpavail commands)... it is practically (maybe even actually) impossible today to get the "moreinfo" needed to better understand what was happenning. Is it appropriate to close an old bug which with hindsight should have been tagged "moreinfo" when that info is unlikely to be available today? [I have closed ancient bugs (6-8yrs old) for that reason, but this one hasn't even seen its 3rd birthday yet and the packages are still in oldstable] The easiest thing to do is simply reassign the bug since the update method most likely used is part of the APT package, although that was never explicitly confirmed and a different update method may well have resulted in what was seen. Is it appropriate to punt a bug off to another package: based on a reasonable assumption? after almost three years? when it is unlikely the other package's maintainers will be able to sort things out? Personally, I would answer those five questions: no, yes, maybe, no, yes (but it is not a nice thing to do)... and be -done with it because the most likely cause was APT's policy during a "dumpavail" resulting in the missing packages being left out of the available file passed onto dselect---so, either not really a bug or a weird side effect of having all available archives in the sources.list file. - Bruce -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]