On Sat, 28 May 2016 22:45:36 +0200 Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2016-05-28 13:25:37 +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: [...] > > Except that stable and oldstable systems do have RC bugs, regardless of > > what they are supposed to have. > > I think that ignoring them would be plain arbitrary... > > This is contradictory to what you said above. The fact is that > handling "affects" is useful for unstable.
No, it's not contradictory. I have not said that handling "affects" would only be useful for unstable. I think that handling the "affects" field would be useful for any apt-listbugs user (regardless of the Debian distribution he/she is running), but *only*: • if there were a way to distinguish between scenario 0 and scenario 1 • if there were version tracking info associated with the "affects" field in scenario 1 Until these conditions are met (or another distinct way to express scenario 1 is implemented in the BTS), I cannot think of a way to usefully take advantage of the "affects" field in apt-listbugs. > If you think that it > is useful for stable and older too, then enable it for these > versions. Otherwise don't. Simple. It would be useful for any Debian distribution, but without associated version tracking info, I cannot see any sane way to handle it. [...] > > I think it's clear that "do not upgrade to B/b1" implies "if it is not > > already too late". > > I don't think so. If the packages are already installed, apt-listbugs > won't come into play. It won't come into play exactly because, if the buggy version is already installed, the bug is *already* present in the system, so there's no point in stopping any further upgrade. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
pgpM59boLNno6.pgp
Description: PGP signature
