Hello, thanks for having investigated that.
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 06:31:04PM +0800, Kan-Ru Chen (陳侃如) wrote: > Ralf Treinen <trei...@debian.org> writes: > > > On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 07:18:12AM +0000, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: > > > >> Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 09:15:46 +0200 > >> From: Mathieu Malaterre <ma...@debian.org> > >> To: 761355-d...@bugs.debian.org > >> Subject: > >> > >> Control: tags -1 wontfix > >> > >> libopenjpeg6-dev never reached testing. closing as wontfix. > > > > That is not a reason to close a bug while it remains unfixed. Policy > > applies to sid as well as to testing or stable. The same holds > > of course for #761356 and #761357. > > It looks like libopenjpeg6 doesn't exist anymore. It is still in the > archive but the source package (openjpeg2) only builds libopenjp2-7. The > only rdepends of libopenjpeg6 is leptonlib which still build-depends on > libopenjpeg6-dev. leptonlib could be simply rebuilt against > libopenjp2-7-dev. OK. In that case one should simply reassign the bug reports to the packages coming from the old version of openjpeg2 (I just did that). > I think after leptonlib is fixed we should RM libopenjpe6 and friends > then mark these bugs as fixed. No need to do that, the binary packages that are no longer generated from the source package will be removed automatically when noone depends on them any longer. I guess this also means that #762684 can be closed ? Cheers -Ralf. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
