Re: Bug#193497: marked as done (svtools: svsetup uses bashism "echo -e")
Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 09:07:00PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
>
>> OK. Let me ask you this question: what if the maintainer uploads a
>> new upstream release which happens to fix bug #xxx, and then sends
>> a message by hand to xxx-done@bugs.debian.org with the message
>> "This bug is fixed in upstream version x.y.z".
>>
>> Do you have a problem with this and if so why?
>
> Yes. There is no record in the package that a bug report in the Debian BTS
> was closed in this version. What about other users who experienced the same
Why should that be in the package? What if you didn't know at the time that
the bug was fixed in this version?
> bug? Is it so hard to explain what bug was fixed, and if possible, how it
> was fixed?
Remember that I'm talking about closing a bug in the BTS by hand. So
what was fixed is obvious. If you want to require everyone to explain
how it was fixed, well I don't think there is anything more I can say to
you.
> Would you upload a new kernel-source saying "Closes: #242141" rather than
> "apply patch from 2.6.48 to fix root security hole in nanosleep()"?
If this is fixed by upstream, yes. I would simply say
* New upstream release (closes: #xxx, #yyy, #zzz).
When I open up a Debian changelog, I expect to see what the Debian
developer has done to it. I don't mind seeing changelog entries
explaining upstream changes as long as they're clearly marked. And
I would be most concerned if people start putting them in without
marking them as upstream.
--
Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ )
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
Reply to: