Control: fixed -1 file/1:5.19-2
On Mon, 8 Sep 2014 10:39:22 +0200 Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2014-09-08 10:26:45 +0200, Christoph Biedl wrote: [...] > > However, I have a feeling apt-listbugs does not act the way it should > > when handling an experimental->sid upgrade. > > Here it was a sid->sid upgrade, and apt-listbugs mentioned a bug > in experimental, but I wonder whether apt-listbugs could know in > a reliable way whether the package was in experimental. Hello, with my apt-listbugs maintainer hat on, I would like to clarify that apt-listbugs does not look into changelogs to check whether the buggy version is an ancestor of the version about to be installed (doing so would really be overkill...). It just compares version numbers: hence, in the upgrade [UPGRADE] file:amd64 1:5.19-1 -> 1:5.19-2 a bug marked as found in version 1:5.19-1+exp1 (and not marked as fixed in any version) is indeed considered relevant, as it is assumed to be present in version 1:5.19-2 too. With my apt-listbugs user hat on, I myself stumbled upon bug #754119 while performing the above mentioned upgrade. I think that adding a fixed version to the bug should prevent apt-listbugs users from seeing this issue while upgrading to version 1:5.19-2 ... I am adding such a fixed version right now. Anyone more knowledgeable than me about the specific issue, feel free to properly close #754119 and/or reopen #670006, if appropriate... Bye. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ fsck is a four letter word... ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
pgpgqNPPDW8QQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
