On Fri, 18 May 2012 14:34:40 +0100 "Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo" <manuel.montezelo@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > 2012/5/18 Daniel Leidert <Daniel.Leidert.Spam@gmx.net>: > > Hi, > > > > Our bug tracker contains items for packages, which do (not longer) exist. What should happen to them? I see, that it might be a good idea to keep them for the case, a package is re-introduced. But this might happen only for a few packages. Most of them got removed because newer versions were released. What about closing those reports, if an RM-request is filed? > > > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?maint= > > As others have said, I asked the question only a few weeks ago: > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/03/msg00946.html > > Reassigning 300 bugs from emacsX (X<23) to current emacs packages is > not very helpful, really. What I did is to notify the maintainers (or > related mailing lists) of the three biggest groups (linux, gcc, emacs) > to decide what to do. There's a big difference between these bugs and the rest - here there are clear migration paths to later packages which can be used to triage the bug reports in order not to lose reports. A lot of the rest *can* be closed without more triage work because the package was removed, not replaced. e.g. gcc-4.4 bugs may be applicable with gcc-4.7 and need to be triaged. The opensync/multisync bugs just had to be closed without even looking at any of them. Identifying this subset (which could be quite large) which apply only to packages which have no appropriate replacement packages would be a very useful QA step and dramatically improve the total number of bugs in this situation. Simplest safeguard here is to ensure that the list of bugs closed in this way is fed back to a comment in the original bug report against ftp.debian.org which got the package removed in the first place and which is the permanent record of the removal. > Don't know what to suggest, really, but it's a shame that some very > helpful bug reports are lost in this process for Debian. The are many > good bug reports about GCC, e.g. incorrect optimisations or wrong code > in some architectures that were closed so close as 1 month ago (so > they are not part of 4.7, they will be in 4.8), and which were > reported in Debian (and forwarded upstream by Debian maintainers) many > many years ago. Some similar ones reported years ago are still not > forwarded, but I haven't yet handled them to see if they are valid, > reproducible or what (#448370, #470557). > > So I wouldn't blindly close those bug reports, and that's why I'm > triaging and handling them in my spare time. Where there are replacement packages, there is work to do. Otherwise, the bugs need to be closed. The very small number of packages which get re-introduced after ftpmaster removal don't merit special treatment in this regard - as long as when the orphaned bugs are closed, some mention is made of the bug numbers in the bug report at ftp.debian.org. (If ftp.debian.org gets removed we will have larger problems, or no problems at all, depending on your perspective.) -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgpnB85sFEvQI.pgp
Description: PGP signature