Camaleón wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> > Camaleón wrote:
> >> But it seems the problem remains (read comment #45) so dunno why it was
> >> archived with apparently no additional clues on the current status:
> >
> > This was the message that closed it. It was sent to 617940-done and so
> > the bug was marked as closed. The other bug was forcibly merged with
> > this one and so it was closed too.
> >
> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=617940#26
>
> Yes, but regardless the bug status (closed or archived) the issue
> persists as reported later:
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=33;bug=617940
>
> Or is that I am wrongly reading the "notfixed 617940 2:1.0~rc3+svn20090426-2" tag?
What I see by looking now is:
* 617940 is/was assigned to the libvdpau1 package
* notfixed 617940 2:1.0~rc3+svn20090426-2 removes any indication that
version 2:1.0~rc3+svn20090426-2 was fixed.
* libvdpau1 never had any version 2:1.0~rc3+svn20090426-2 in the
archive according to http://packages.qa.debian.org/libv/libvdpau.html
and therefore marking it as not fixed does not mark any existing
version as buggy. The version number is just completely bogus.
I think 2:1.0~rc3+svn20090426-2 was meant to apply to mplayer not
libvdpau1 and therefore the intended bug maintenance actions did not
occur as intended. The bug remained closed and was archived according
to the standard schedule for closed bugs.
Bob
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature