Re: The new installer
Brian Mays wrote:
> > ... This is the same reason, I assume, that bugs fixed by a NMU are
> > tagged as "fixed" instead of having their reports closed. Again,
> > availability of a fixed package is not the issue. ...
Josip Rodin wrote:
> Well, I would think the uploader takes responsibility for the bugs
> they fix when NMUign. One doesn't just carelessly upload fixes not
> giving a damn whether they'll work or not.
Well, yes and no. The person doing the NMU (the "non-maintainer") has
taken responsibility for fixing the bug, but he cannot ensure that the
next release is correctly fixed. The maintainer alone can ensure that.
This, in my opinion, is why the bug report is not closed.
On the other hand, if another person (e.g., the originator of the
report) is able to demonstrate that the bug does not exist or was
erroneously reported, he can take responsibility for resolving the
problem and can close the report. Since the problem does not exist, the
next version of the package will not have the problem.
> I would tend to explain the fact the bug remains open as a courtesy
> measure to the maintainer -- the NMUer leaves it to the maintainer to
> finally inform the bug submitter of the good news. And also, they're
> left unclosed as a reminder to the maintainer that they've still got
> work to do, to verify the NMU etc.
True, it is a courtesy; however, I see the reminder that you mention as
the most important reason. When the maintainer has incorporate the fix
into his sources before preparing the next release, he can close the
report as resolved, since all of the "loose ends" have been taken care
of.
Anyhow, my original point was that the whole process is independent
of what is actually available on the Debian ftp sites. And Josip is
correct that there always has been and always will be a delay.
- Brian
Reply to: