On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 02:11:14 +0300 Eddy Petrișor wrote: > Hello, > > I have seen this report and I think I know what was the purpose of the > behaviour seen here:
I don't think that what I detected was done on purpose: just take a look at the code and at my patch. Without my patch, less_found_at_all is set to false and then conditionally set to false inside the iteration loop. I mean: what is the use of a boolean variable which is always false? > > Francesco Poli: > > Actually, whenever the given version is between two versions > > the bugreport is marked as found in, the bugreport is wrongly > > ignored. > > I was about to report that this exact behaviour does *not* happen (and I am > still not sure how you > got it). Did you try to issue the commands I provided as examples, getting different results? I still get substantially the same results (bug #468926 is ignored in the first apt-listbugs invocation, but not in the second one: it should not be ignored in either one). > > Rationale: when apt-listbugs is called from apt, a bug which already affects > my version shouldn't > stop me from upgrading since that would always keep me in place This is true, but unrelated. When I use the apt-listbugs list command, I want to know which bugs affect a package or a given version of a package, regardless of which version of that package I have installed on my system (if at all!). Hence, bug #468926, which is marked as found in versions audacious/1.4.6-2, and audacious/1.5.0-2 (and now is marked as fixed in version audacious-plugins/1.5.1-1, without any bug reassignment, but that's another story...), *does* affect both audacious/1.5.0-1 and audacious/1.5.0-2: it should be listed in both my apt-listbugs list invocations. > > > > I think the fix should be the addition of an option "--newsince $PACK/$VER" > which should instruct > apt-listbugs to show *only* the bugs which are present in the given version, > but were not present in > $VER. Some way to make apt-listbugs ignore bugs that affect package/version, but are already present in package/installedversion, can really be useful, but should be filed as a separate wishlist bug, IMHO. -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/index.html#nanodocs The nano-document series is here! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
pgp2p7Jtj3HJZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
