Re: Bug#1114180: libplacebo: FTBFS: dh_auto_build: error: cd obj-x86_64-linux-gnu && LC_ALL=C.UTF-8 ninja -j2 -v returned exit code 1
[ not cc:ing the bug anymore, moving to -devel ]
Richard Lewis wrote:
> Wouldnt that logic suggest that all bugs that also affect stable to be
> left open until the next stable release? [...]
No. When I say "still work to do" I mainly refer to FTBFS bugs, i.e
those cases where a fix is not only desired but *mandated* by the DFSG.
For example, when a package FTBFS in both stable and testing/sid and
an upload for unstable closes the bug, the bug should be allowed to be
kept open, as there is still work to do (i.e. fixing the FTBFS bug in
stable).
Similarly, when a package FTBFS in unstable and an upload for
experimental closes the bug, the bug should be allowed to be kept open,
as there is still work to do (i.e. fixing the FTBFS bug in unstable).
Paul Gevers wrote:
> The *default* of the BTS is to show the bugs affecting unstable.
No. If the default of the BTS was to show the bugs affecting unstable,
libplacebo in the view below would not show as "Resolved".
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?src=libplacebo
I have to add the unstable thing to the URL (as pointed out by Sebastian)
so that the package is shown as "outstanding" (which BTW is not the
same as "open").
Every time this issue arises I always hear "version tracking! version
tracking!".
So: I have to call those who advocate for marking bugs fixed in
experimental as "closed" in the BTS and I invite you to answer the
following simple question: Where in earth is stated that version
tracking *mandates* such thing?
If you can't quote an official document which clearly states that bugs
fixed in experimental *must* be kept closed even if unstable is still
affected, then please admit at least that this is a personal
preference of yours, and please stop suggesting that it's a
consequence of version tracking when it's not, and stop telling people
that they have to do it that way "because of version tracking".
I just want to preserve the traditional meaning for open/closed bug
for the cases where a bug is expected to be fixed in more than one
place (be it unstable/experimental or stable/unstable).
Version tracking does not need to change that.
Thanks.
Reply to: