On 19 May 2013 22:18, Vincent Lefevre <vinc...@vinc17.net> wrote: > found 363502 5.2+dfsg-2 > thanks > > On 2013-05-19 20:49:43 +0100, Reuben Thomas wrote: > > libreadline5 seems to be used by few programs now, so it's not so > > important. I think it's most important that it be filed against > > libreadline6 and bash. However, since it's likely to be the same bug in > > libreadline5 and libreadline6, and also because it seems logical, maybe > it > > should be cloned both to bash and libreadline6? Or assigned to > libreadline6 > > and cloned to bash and libreadline5? > > I've checked that it still occurs with libreadline5 by installing > units from squeeze. I could also reproduce the bug with clisp, > whose unstable version still depends on libreadline5 (but I'm not > sure that it really uses the library, as ldd doesn't list it). > > I think that the bug should be cloned twice, and have 2 reassign's > (I don't know which package is best for the original bug number). >
I hope you're saying you're going to make the decision, because I'm sure you know the Debian BTS better than I! I would say the original new bug should be against libreadline6, as a) that's the most important package to fix it in, and b) if it remains open for a long time, it won't risk being accidentally closed if e.g. libreadline5 disappears in the next release. -- http://rrt.sc3d.org
