Re: should bugs really be closed?
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
> > As gcc changelog.Debian states, bugs filed against earlier versions
> > of gcc (e.g. gcc-3.2 or gcc-2.95) are closed when they are fixed in
> > later version (e.g. gcc 3.3).
> >
> > Is that really correct?
> > gcc-3.2 package is still in Debian and still contains those bugs. So
> > IMHO bugs should be still opened against it, unless a fix is
> > backported.
>
> These bugs won't be fixed in gcc-3.2. gcc-3.3 is a newer upstream
> version. Just because it's made as a separate package doesn't mean a
> newer upstream hasn't been uploaded(3.3).
>
> If we follow your advice, then all packages would need to have separate
> per-(major-)version instances, so that bugs on older versions could be
> fixed.
Why? I don't mean that older versions of any packages should be kept in
the archive.
I agree that bugs filed e.g. against KDE2 that are fixed in KDE3 should be
closed, because KDE3 packages do superseed KDE2 packages (KDE2 packages
are no longer in unstable).
But in case of gcc, older versions do present in the archive, and possibly
will not disappear for quite a while. So why bug filed against gcc-3.2
package should be closed if gcc-3.2 package is in unstable and still
contains that bug (and probably will contain it until it's removal)?
The same situation is with different versions of tcl, with gtk1/gtk2, and
some other packages.
Reply to: