2012/5/18 Neil Williams <codeh...@debian.org>: > There's a big difference between these bugs and the rest - here there > are clear migration paths to later packages which can be used to triage > the bug reports in order not to lose reports. A lot of the rest *can* > be closed without more triage work because the package was removed, not > replaced. e.g. gcc-4.4 bugs may be applicable with gcc-4.7 and need to > be triaged. The opensync/multisync bugs just had to be closed without > even looking at any of them.
Yes, I fully agree with that for the packages-removed-for-good. The thing is that a big % of the initial bugs (1500+ when I brought this up, 1200+ now) is made up of the "gcc like" cases: gcc, emacs, linux, libdb, python2.4, various java stuff, tomcat5.5... I don't know if they're 30, 50 or 80%, but definitely there is a big amount of real bugs still related to current software shipped in Debian. Another question, perhaps unrelated is, what happens with the bugs closed from egroupware or salome (removed from unstable/testing but still present in stable releases) when their users look for them in the BTS? They would be closed and archived, I suppose, and users of stable wouldn't be able to find them easily -- and them maybe report them again. So at the moment I left those bugs alone. I assume that they will be autodeleted by some process when they're not present in stable anymore, but perhaps are wrong and that's why there are such high number of orphan bugs. Cheers. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/capq4b8nh+urvcoyz10vpahavoataw5em_1n6y2n-utdpmje...@mail.gmail.com
