Re: "new bugs" already fixed
* Simon Huggins (email@example.com) [080509 16:59]:
> On Fri, May 09, 2008 at 02:33:42PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Simon Huggins (firstname.lastname@example.org) [080509 12:20]:
> > > On Fri, May 09, 2008 at 10:39:28AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > > > On Fri, May 09, 2008 at 10:37:51AM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, May 09, 2008 at 09:27:12AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > > > > > telegnome (- to 0.1.0-3)
> > > > > > Maintainer: Colin Watson
> > > > > > Too young, only 1 of 10 days old
> > > > > > out of date on alpha: telegnome (from 0.0.10-7)
> > > > > > out of date on hppa: telegnome (from 0.0.10-7)
> > > > > > telegnome (source, i386, alpha, amd64, arm, hppa, ia64, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, sparc, armel) has new bugs!
> > > > > > Updating telegnome introduces new bugs: #464331
> > > > > > Not considered
> > > It does say "introduces new bugs" (twice) and "has new bugs". These
> > > aren't true; the bugs are only in the out of date package.
> > In case it would migrate to testing as is, a new RC bug would be present
> > in some of the binary packages. In case only armel would be
> > out-of-date, it would even be relevant to not allow testing migration.
> Ok, as an Englishman I read:
> Updating telegnome introduces new bugs: #464331
> When I update telegnome in testing from 0.0.10-7 (with RC bugs)
> to 0.1.0-3 (without), there is a new bug which didn't exist
> which is untrue.
It reads: If telegnome in testing is updated from no version to the
version in unstable, it introduces the RC bug #464331 into testing.
> If the *newer* teleglobe had an RC bug I would understand this output
> but as it doesn't it seems a little odd.
The version of teleglobe in unstable *has* an RC bug. Please keep in
mind that both source and binary package can carry RC bugs.
Anyways, end-of-discussion on d-release. If you want to get testing
migration explained better, please read the FAQs and the developers
reference, and if still in doubt, please ask on -mentors or somewhere