Re: [debian-devel] mICQ packaging (was: Re: On the matter of Qt packaging)
On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 06:57:32PM +0100, Rüdiger Kuhlmann wrote:
> >--[C?lin Watson]--<firstname.lastname@example.org>
Yes, thank you, point taken. Blame a combination of my mailer,
LC_CTYPE=C, and my inattention.
> > On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 03:08:00AM +0100, Rüdiger Kuhlmann wrote:
> > > >--[Jordi Mallach]--<email@example.com>
> > > # Sander decided to remove the package from Debian entirely, and
> > > Rüdiger There was no reason to do so, because it still worked
> > > somewhat, and I wasn't even told by the maintainer (who was on the
> > > mICQ mailing list) and only found out accidently when the bug
> > > reports mysteriously disappeared.
> > Bug reports don't "mysteriously disappear" when packages are removed.
> Well, they were closed, of course. So what's your point?
My point is that they don't disappear, even if nobody happens to notice
them being closed. Even when they're archived after 28 days of
inactivity they're still readable to anyone who cares to pass
"&archive=yes" to pkgreport.cgi.
Anyway, none of micq's closed-on-removal bugs got old enough to be
archived before Martin Michlmayr reopened them, so it wasn't a problem.
> The whole stuff was removed behind my back under my feet, which is
> what I was complaining rightly about. You may want to inform yourself
> _first_ before you further comment on this issue
As a BTS admin I was hoping to be helpful by giving some information (as
in my experience people are often confused about what happens to bugs
when packages are removed). If your only response to attempted
helpfulness is rudeness, I'm hardly surprised that this thread is going
the way it is.
Colin Watson [firstname.lastname@example.org]