On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 10:01:04AM +0100, Filip Van Raemdonck wrote: > Hi all,
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 06:47:09AM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote: > > > > So, I hereby propose: > > > > 1) close #308812 and #347584 with "Version: 3.0.20b-3 > > > Yes, closing 308812 since this dependency has now been added. > > And also close 347584 which is the same....doing so right now. > (I had already closed #347584 which I mistakenly cloned, but that does not > really matter anyway) > Both #308812 and #347585 still affect sarge, which is currently our > official release. Under normal circumstances I don't usually care about > bugs being closed if they are in stable but fixed in unstable (and > possibly testing). However, both of these simply make the software plain > unusable. > I'd suggest reopening #308812 and then tagging sarge and fixed, so it > stays documented in BTS. Please see the announcements about version tracking in the Debian BTS that were sent to debian-devel-announce last summer. Closing bugs with Version: headers is the canonical means of marking bugs as being specific to sarge now. > And perhaps rebuild for sarge with necessary dependency and upload to > proposed-updates, though I'm not sure without checking what qualifications > are these days for non-security issues to still get through to stable > point releases. I mean to submit an update at some point that fixes the smbpasswd-eating upgrade bug, and can roll this in at the same time. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
