Le vendredi 18 mai 2012 17:41:55, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo a écrit : > 2012/5/18 Neil Williams <codehelp@debian.org>: > > 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. > > Yes, I fully agree with that for the packages-removed-for-good. > > The thing is that a big % of the initial bugs (1500+ when I brought > this up, 1200+ now) is made up of the "gcc like" cases: gcc, emacs, > linux, libdb, python2.4, various java stuff, tomcat5.5... > > I don't know if they're 30, 50 or 80%, but definitely there is a big > amount of real bugs still related to current software shipped in > Debian. > > Another question, perhaps unrelated is, what happens with the bugs > closed from egroupware or salome (removed from unstable/testing but > still present in stable releases) when their users look for them in > the BTS? They would be closed and archived, I suppose, and users of > stable wouldn't be able to find them easily -- and them maybe report > them again. According to [1] salome is not part of any debian release now. Did I miss something? IIRW, for package still in stable, if the -done mail contains the right version then the bug will still be visible as long as it affects stable. [1] http://packages.qa.debian.org/s/salome.html > > So at the moment I left those bugs alone. I assume that they will be > autodeleted by some process when they're not present in stable > anymore, but perhaps are wrong and that's why there are such high > number of orphan bugs. > > > Cheers. Cheers.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.