[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Closing bugs in removed packages

On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 01:52:11AM +1100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> I did some inactive maintainer work recently and noticed that someone
> wants to do an NMU for a package which is not in the archive anymore.

Is there any way at all in the BTS to mark packages which have been
removed, or which will be removed? It will clear up some of the confusion
here. I've accidentally tried to NMU a package destined for removal

> It is one of about 30 packages which were purged by the RM in November
> (see http://ftp-master.debian.org/removals.txt and search for "purged
> by RM").  I normally close bugs of packages that are removed from
> Debian, but I remember not closing the bugs of those packages because
> the packages were not removed with the consent of the maintainer.  And
> that means that the packages might get re-introduced again later.
> Since you cannot re-open bugs after 30 days, I thought I'd just leave
> them open for now.  However, this is not an optimal solution since
> there are about 40 RC bugs and > 300 bugs in total just from these
> packages (packages which are not even in Debian anymore!).

If there is a way for the BTS to realize that a package has been removed,
it could display a notice to that effect on that package's bug page, and
also not count them in the bug stats and graphs. (And yes, removing 300
bugs from the BTS is probably a good thing. The bug graph seems destined
to rise forever.)

> In any case, to avoid people fixing those bugs, I tagged the 41 RC
> bugs as "fixed" now.  Since the packages haven't been re-introduced
> since November, I'm probably going to close all >300 bugs soon with a
> nice message that the package was removed.  However, I wanted to raise
> this issue here just to see what other people think.

Perhaps just tag them all "fixed"? Although that might be misleading.


Written on the window of a clothing store: No shirt, no shoes, no service.

Attachment: pgpVg5qPtKAPv.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: