Re: MBF Re: Bug#621277: ggz-grubby: Getting rid of unneeded *.la / emptying dependency_libs
Neil Williams <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2011 19:13:43 +0200
> Andreas Metzler <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> On 2011-04-06 email@example.com wrote:
>> > Package: ggz-grubby
>> > Severity: normal
>> > User: firstname.lastname@example.org
>> > Usertags: la-file-removal
>> > To finish an old release goal from Squeeze, to comply with Policy
>> > 10.2 and to ease the introduction of MultiArch, I'm filing bugs
>> > against packages which contain .la files which can be either removed
>> > or stripped of the dependency_libs variable.
>> a) There were duplicate bugs filed.
> It would have been helpful to list some of those. I've found one out of
> the bugs submitted against the packages you mention.
I have not done a systematic check, but there is e.g. 621228 or 621246
>> c) The bugs reports are unversioned.
>> I can completely understand that a and b can occassionally happen due
>> to timing issues. However imnsho a MBF with unversioned bug-reports is
>> not acceptable.
> I've been updating the process at this end and I'll be able to add the
> version information for the next runs. However, the original data does
> not include a version so the only version number available is what can
> be retrieved from either an apt-cache on sid or rmadison. That
> therefore suffers from the same timing problems as the other issues
> you've described.
So, you need to improve on the process and add versioning to the source
data. Reporting against the latests version in sid when you have not
verified this is the correct version is worse than omitting the
version info. You will (occasionally) report incorrect versioning
instead of saying "I don't know".