Re: The new installer
On Tue, Feb 26, 2002 at 06:38:41PM -0500, Brian Mays wrote:
> > The same NMUer, or another NMUer, can continue to NMU new versions and
> > thus ensure it remains fixed.
>
> Of course, this begs the question: why doesn't this person just adopt the
> package?
It sure does, but that was still a NMU...
> > OTOH when the maintainer closes the bug, that in itself doesn't mean
> > he's going to ensure it's fixed in a new version -- they may not even
> > be the package's maintainer any longer when the next version comes
> > out.
>
> If he closes the bug, then he has "taken responsibility" for it, whoever
> he is. Either it is fixed or it is a non-issue.
Yes, but then ensuring fixes in new versions can't be a reason for NMUs not
closing bugs, because NMUs do accomplish the above :)
> > Interesting how the exact rationale is undocumented. Or at least I
> > can't find it anywhere.
>
> Oh well. Just take it as current practice. FWIW, I'm going on the
> documentation in /usr/share/doc/debian/bug-maint-info.txt.gz and my
> interpretation of what it says. In my opinion, the procedures outlined in
> this document make sense and lead to a system that works and is clearly
> defined, even if the rationale for what it specifies is not exactly clear.
> In any case, it is important when debating the original topic of this
> thread to keep in mind how the BTS is supposed to work and what it means
> to close a bug, as defined by the documentation available on the system.
There are many things about the BTS which aren't a matter of technical
implementation, but of usage policy. Unfortunately the BTS documentation is
lacking/lagging in this aspect. I've had to edit that file (and others) on
several occasions to clarify the BCPs; and, there's still work to do.
I think we shouldn't take anything about the BTS usage policies as a given
based on documentation written in different circumstances. And, I should
mention, written by a coder :)
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
Reply to: