On Wed, 2008-04-23 at 00:56 +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 23:37 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 23:01 +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
[...]
> > which is in a block of code that's only called if dch was called with
> > --closes.
> 
> Ah, now that makes sense. I was trying to work out why this bug had not
> been noticed before. I've been working with some unreleased upstream
> packages and --closes in each case is an ITP.
> 
> > I can reproduce the above error, but only by using a changelog for a
> > package that doesn't exist in the Debian archive and passing --closes.
> 
> However, I can reproduce it with any package whether in Debian or not as
> long as --closes is used. Try with 'dch -i --closes 123456'.

That gives me a correctly formatted changelog entry for the initial
release of eazel-engine (#123456 /is/ one of my usual test cases :-)

[...]
> Interestingly, this works:
> $ dch -a -p wnpp --closes 477218
> 
> (for estron, the correct package for that ITP).
> 
> tagpending needs to be told about wnpp/ITP bugs but I've never had to
> tell dch about that before. It seems that it is the error checking that
> has been disabled / replaced.

The most recent change to that area of code was the switch from using
HTML scraping to the BTS's SOAP interface. That was a couple of months
ago, in 2.10.17.

[...]
> dch only appears to work for 'dch -a --closes number' where that number
> *is* the correct bug number and applies to that package. i.e. all error
> checking has apparently been replaced by this perl error, which isn't
> exactly helpful when trying to work out what has gone wrong. ;-)

At least in my tests, it also works fine when the package in question
has at least one open bug, which would explain why using "-p wnpp"
works.

Could you please try http://alioth.debian.org/~adam-guest/debchange.pl
and let me know if that resolves the issue for you?

Regards,

Adam



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to