Control: reopen -1 , tags -1 + fixed-in-experimental On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 9:15 PM, Debian Bug Tracking System <ow...@bugs.debian.org> wrote: > This is an automatic notification regarding your Bug report > which was filed against the aptitude package: > > #691874: aptitude: "versions" treats barewords as ?name instead of ?exact-name > > It has been closed by Daniel Hartwig <mand...@gmail.com>. > > Their explanation is attached below along with your original report. > If this explanation is unsatisfactory and you have not received a > better one in a separate message then please contact Daniel Hartwig > <mand...@gmail.com> by > replying to this email. > > > -- > 691874: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=691874 > Debian Bug Tracking System > Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Daniel Hartwig <mand...@gmail.com> > To: 691874-d...@bugs.debian.org > Cc: > Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 09:11:49 +0800 > Subject: Re: Bug#691874: aptitude: "versions" treats barewords as ?name > instead of ?exact-name > Version: 0.6.9-1 > > On 31 October 2012 00:21, Samuel Bronson <naes...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Package: aptitude >> Version: 0.6.8.1-2 >> Severity: normal >> >> Dear Maintainer, >> >> According to the documentation, the "versions" command treats each >> argument as either a package name or a search pattern, depending on >> whether or not it has any '~' or '?' characters. >> >> This could, for example, be implemented by treating plain arguments as >> "?exact-name" patterns. >> >> However, it actually seems to treat them as "?name" patterns, so that >> e.g. the wesnoth example produces this output: > > This is resolved with the version in experimental.
I'm pretty sure you're not supposed to close the bug outright until the fix hits unstable ;-) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
