Re: Bug#193497: marked as done (svtools: svsetup uses bashism "echo -e")
* Rene Engelhard (firstname.lastname@example.org) [030601 18:50]:
> Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 02:59:40PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> > > > * New upstream version (Closes: #193497)
> > >
> > > Meep. No.
> > >
> > > Write proper changelogs and(or close bugs the right way[tm]. That
> > > form is only acceptable for "New upstream version, please package it"
> > > like bugs.
> > With all due respect: piss off.
> > Is this a new sport in #d-d or something like that? I read that entry
> > as "the new upstream version fixes the problem reported in #193497",
> > and looking at the BTS that is exactly its meaning.
> yes. And what is when someone is offline and wants to see what
> that bug was about?
> But we discussed that already enough on this list...
You should really accept the decision of a package maintainer.
However, it really might be better to put a longer statement into
changelog. _But_ it's certainly much worse to re-open a really closed
bug than to make a too short changelog entry. (BTW: You should really
make cleaner why changing of the compiler closes the Bug 194555. The
situation there is fare worse than here. You shouldn't flame until
PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C