Ralf Treinen <trei...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> writes: > 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.
How often do that happen? Even if the packages have inter-dependencies? > I guess this also means that #762684 can be closed ? Yes! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
