On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 19:19:30 +0200, Stephen Kitt wrote: > Hi Julien, > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 10:36:28AM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 07:45:23 +0200, Stephen Kitt wrote: > > > notfound 613593 1:6.13.2-2 > > > thanks > > > > > notfound doesn't mean what you think it means. > > Perhaps I don't think what you think I'm thinking ;-). > > Given that this bug turned out not to be a bug but a configuration > error, I thought it more accurate to remove the record of specific > versions supposedly affected, especially since fixing the problem > involved changing the configuration rather than upgrading to a later > version of the package (and therefore no “fixed” version could be > specified). Admittedly the configuration error only ended up causing a > problem starting with 1:6.13.2-2, so it could still be interesting to > have the version info... > > It seems to me this is a kind of bug which doesn't quite align with > the found/fixed BTS semantics, but then again I'm probably wrong. > > If you don't mind explaining how I should have proceeded I wouldn't > mind learning! > The way to mark such things is the absence of a 'fixed' version. 'found' doesn't matter in that case.
Cheers, Julien -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
