On 10/20/21 8:06 AM, Paul Gevers wrote: >>> I'm not sure if the blocking bug is even a bug in bookworm. If I >>> understand it correctly, the issue reported there was purely for buster >>> to bullseye upgrades and can be ignored afterwards. FYI, the BTS >>> considers the bug affecting unstable because the version of the package >>> in unstable is not a descendant of the fixed version (judged by parsing >>> the changelog). >> >> This looks like a correct analysis. So in fact, the only thing that >> should be done is fix the BTS entry no? I'm not sure how... > > Tell the BTS that the version in unstable is also fixed: > https://www.debian.org/Bugs/server-control
Thanks for confirming it, as I wasn't sure. >> IMO, that's not what's needed here. What's needed, is to tell the BTS >> the package is working as expected, and should be migrating. IMO, the >> bug you're opening is: >> 1/ not following the rules (because 22 days instead of 60) > > I don't agree, your package *is* out of sync for so long. Oh ok. Though you pointed at the excuse page which showed 22 days, which was kind of confusing then... :) >> 2/ unfortunately not very helpful ... > > I consider it the task of the maintainer to ensure his package migrates. > That was what I tried to convey. In this case I spotted the likely root > cause and I hope I taught you something in the process such that future > uploads don't suffer from this. Thanks for it, as it hopefully triggered the right fix. Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)
